Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74909 

1See comment from William Edwards, Docket 

No. FAA–2023–0825–0132. 

2The Experimental Aircraft Association’s 

AirVenture Oshkosh Air Show was held from July 

24 through July 30, 2023. 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

I. Background 

On May 23, 2023, the FAA published 

an NPRM titled ‘‘Removal of Expiration 

Date on a Flight Instructor Certificate; 

Additional Qualification Requirements 

To Train Initial Flight Instructor 

Applicants; and Other Provisions,’’ in 

the Federal Register (88 FR 32983; 

Notice No. 23–06). The NPRM primarily 

proposed amendments to flight 

instructor certificate requirements in 

part 61. First, the FAA proposed to 

amend flight instructor certificate 

renewal requirements by changing the 

existing renewal requirements to recent 

experience requirements and adding a 

new method for persons to establish 

recent flight instructor experience. 

Additionally, the FAA proposed to 

allow a flight instructor whose recent 

experience lapsed by no more than three 

calendar months to reinstate flight 

instructor privileges by taking an 

approved flight instructor refresher 

course rather than completing a flight 

instructor certification practical test. 

Further, the FAA proposed to amend 

the qualification requirements for flight 

instructors seeking to provide training 

to initial flight instructor applicants by 

adding two new methods under which 

a flight instructor may become qualified 

to provide this training. Finally, the 

FAA proposed to relocate and codify 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

(SFAR) 100–2, Relief for U.S. Military 

and Civilian Personnel who are 

Assigned Outside the United States in 

Support of U.S. Armed Forces 

Operations into parts 61, 63, and 65. 

Commenters were instructed to 

provide comments on or before June 22, 

2023 (i.e., 30 days from the date of 

publication of the NPRM). However, 

during the original comment period, the 

FAA received a request to extend the 

comment period to provide additional 

time to the public to comment on the 

proposed rule.1 Specifically, the 

comment proposed several 

recommendations in lieu of the 

proposed rulemaking. One such 

comment urged the FAA to convene a 

working group and consult with the 

flight training industry and, at a 

minimum, an extension of the comment 

period until after AirVenture 2023.2

II. Reopening of Comment Period 

The FAA grants the commenter’s 

request for an extension of the comment 

period to comment on the proposed 

rule. Under the guidance of Executive 

Order 13563, which provides that the 

public must be afforded a meaningful 

opportunity to comment with a 

comment period that should generally 

be at least 60 days, the FAA finds that 

an additional thirty (30) days will 

provide sufficient opportunity for the 

public to comment (i.e., a total period of 

60 days). Therefore, the comment period 

for Notice No. 23–06 is reopened until 

December 1, 2023. 

The FAA will not grant any additional 

requests to further extend the comment 

period for this rulemaking. Issued under 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 

44701(a)(5), and 44703(a) in 

Washington, DC, on or about October 

26, 2023. 

Brandon Roberts, 

Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24082 Filed 10–31–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1264 

[CPSC Docket No. 2011–0074] 

Safety Standard Addressing BladeContact Injuries on Table Saws 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; notice of 

opportunity for oral presentation of 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (Commission or 

CPSC) has determined preliminarily 

that there may be an unreasonable risk 

of blade-contact injuries associated with 

table saws. To address this hazard, the 

Commission proposes a rule under the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) 

that would establish a performance 

standard that requires table saws to 

limit the depth of cut to no more than 

3.5 millimeters when a test probe, acting 

as surrogate for a human finger or other 

body part, approaches the spinning 

blade at a rate of 1 meter per second 

(m/s). The Commission is providing an 

opportunity for interested parties to 

present comments on this supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR). 

DATES: 

Deadline for Written Comments: 

Written comments must be received by 

January 2, 2024. 

Deadline for Request to Present Oral 

Comments: Any person interested in 

making an oral presentation must send 

an email indicating this intent to the 

Office of the Secretary at cpsc-os@

cpsc.gov by December 1, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: 

Written Comments: You may submit 

written comments in response to the 

proposed rule, identified by Docket No. 

CPSC–2011–0074, by any of the 

following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit through this website: 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information that you do not 

want to be available to the public. The 

Commission typically does not accept 

comments submitted by email, except as 

described below. 

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier/Written 

Submissions: CPSC encourages you to 

submit electronic comments by using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You 

may, however, submit comments by 

mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of 

the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this document. CPSC 

may post all comments without change, 

including any personal identifiers, 

contact information, or other personal 

information provided, to: http://

www.regulations.gov. If you wish to 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public, you may submit such 

comments by mail, hand delivery, or 

courier, or you may email them to cpscos@cpsc.gov. 

Docket SNPR: For access to the docket 

to read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http://

www.regulations.gov, insert docket 

number CPSC–2011–0074 into the 

‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Caroleene Paul, Directorate for 

Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74910 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1On October 18, 2023, the Commission voted 3– 

1 to publish this supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Commissioners Feldman and Trumka 

issued statements in connection with their votes 

available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ 

Comm-Mtg-Min-TableSaws-SupplementalNPRDecisional.pdf?VersionId=JizUyNt5p7KDR_

svKn2O6ql9VkHIR2E8. 

2See Commission Briefing Package: Proposed 

Rule: Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact 

Injuries on Table Saws, available at https://

www.cpsc.gov/content/Commission-BriefingPackage-Proposed-Rule-Safety-StandardAddressing-Blade-Contact-Injuries-on-Table-Saws. 

3Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries Special Study 

Report, available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fspublic/Draft%20Notice%20of%20Availability

%20Table%20Saw%20Blade%20Contact%

20Injuries%20Special%20Study%20Report%20- 

%202017%20-%20November%2014%202018.pdf. 

4Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ 

Table%20Saw%20Update%202019.pdf. 

5 Id. at 27–32. 

Product Safety Commission, 5 Research 

Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone 

(301) 987–2225; fax (301) 869–0294; 

email cpaul@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 1

On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, 

David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al. 

(petitioners) requested that the CPSC 

require performance standards for a 

system to reduce or prevent injuries 

associated with contact with the blade 

of a table saw. The petitioners were 

associated with SawStop, LLC, and its 

parent company, SD3, LLC (collectively, 

SawStop). On October 11, 2011, the 

Commission published an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) 

to consider whether there may be an 

unreasonable risk of blade-contact 

injuries associated with table saws. 76 

FR 62678. The ANPR began a 

rulemaking proceeding under the CPSA. 

The Commission received 

approximately 1,600 public comments. 

On May 12, 2017, the Commission 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) to address bladecontact injuries associated with table 

saws. 82 FR 22190. The proposed rule 

stated that it would limit the depth of 

cut of a table saw to 3.5 mm or less 

when a test probe, acting as surrogate 

for a human finger or other body part, 

contacts the spinning blade at an 

approach rate of 1 m/s. CPSC staff 

estimated that the proposed rule would 

prevent or mitigate the severity of 

54,800 medically treated blade-contact 

injuries annually, and that the proposed 

rule’s aggregate net benefits on an 

annual basis could range from about 

$625 million to about $2.3 billion.2 The 

Commission received written comments 

and oral presentations concerning the 

proposed rule. The written comments 

are available at https://

www.regulations.gov/document/CPSC2011-0074-1154/comment, and a video 

of the public hearing is available on the 

Commission’s YouTube channel at 

https://www.youtube.com/ 

watch?v=BgPmKkGIILc. Section VIII of 

this preamble contains a summary of the 

significant issues raised by the 

comments submitted, and the 

Commission’s assessment of those 

issues. 

Following publication of the NPR, 

CPSC staff completed a Special Study of 

table saw injuries that occurred in 

2017.3 On December 4, 2018, the 

Commission announced the availability 

of and sought comment on the study. 83 

FR 62561. The Commission received 

written comments on the study results 

from the public, which are available at 

regulations.gov, under docket number 

CPSC–2011–0074. 

In September 2019, CPSC staff 

submitted a Table Saw Update to the 

Commission with staff’s analysis of 

NEISS data through 2018, including a 

discussion of the 2017 Special Study.4

The results of the 2017 Special Study 

indicated that there might be a lower 

risk of injury on table saws equipped 

with a modular blade guard system that 

met the latest voluntary standards, 

compared to older table saws equipped 

with a traditional blade guard system. 

However, a 15-year trend analysis (from 

2004 to 2018) of table saw injuries 

reported in the September 2019 update 

showed no reduction in table saw 

injuries from 2010 to 2018, despite the 

fact that a voluntary standard that 

became effective in 2010 required new 

table saws to be equipped with modular 

blade guard systems.5

This SNPR analyzes updated incident 

data through 2021. The data confirm the 

2019 analysis and suggest no reduction 

in table saw injuries despite the fact that 

the relevant voluntary standard has 

required table saws to include modular 

blade guards since 2010. 

Also since publication of the NPR in 

2017, staff is aware of several changes 

to the table saw market that include: 

• introduction of a compact table saw 

with active injury mitigation (AIM) 

capabilities; 

• introduction of a Preventative 

Contact System (PCS) on a commercial 

sliding table panel saw; 

• introduction of cordless, batterypowered bench saws by at least two 

manufacturers; 

• change in ownership of patents 

related to SawStop AIM technology, 

with the acquisition of SawStop, LLC, 

by TTS Tooltechnic Systems Holding 

AG (TTS); and 

• expiration of two patents related to 

SawStop AIM technology. 

The Commission is issuing this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking based on staff’s analysis of 

newly available incident data, 

evaluation of newly available products, 

and other market information that did 

not exist at the time of the 2017 NPR. 

As discussed in greater detail in section 

VII of this preamble, the revised 

proposed rule is generally consistent 

with the rule proposed in the 2017 NPR, 

but includes an updated definition of 

the term ‘‘table saw,’’ a more precise 

description of the proposed 

performance requirement, and a revised 

anti-stockpiling provision. 

The Commission now expects that the 

proposed rule would prevent or mitigate 

the severity of an estimated 49,176 

injuries treated in hospital emergency 

departments or other medical settings 

per year. The Commission further 

estimates that net benefits would range 

from approximately $1.28 billion to 

$2.32 billion per year. 

II. Statutory Authority 

This supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking is authorized by the CPSA. 

15 U.S.C. 2051–2084. Section 7 of the 

CPSA authorizes the Commission to 

promulgate a mandatory consumer 

product safety standard that sets forth 

performance or labeling requirements 

for a consumer product if such 

requirements are reasonably necessary 

to prevent or reduce an unreasonable 

risk of injury. 15 U.S.C. 2056(a). Section 

9 of the CPSA specifies the procedure 

that the Commission must follow to 

issue a consumer product safety 

standard under section 7. 

Pursuant to section 9(f)(1) of the 

CPSA, before promulgating a consumer 

product safety rule, the Commission 

must consider, and make appropriate 

findings to be included in the rule, on 

the following issues: 

• The degree and nature of the risk of 

injury that the rule is designed to 

eliminate or reduce; 

• The approximate number of 

consumer products subject to the rule; 

• The need of the public for the 

products subject to the rule and the 

probable effect the rule will have on the 

utility, cost, or availability of such 

products; and 

• The means to achieve the objective 

of the rule while minimizing adverse 

effects on competition, manufacturing, 

and commercial practices. 

15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(1). 

Under section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA, to 

issue a final rule, the Commission must 

find that the rule is ‘‘reasonably 

necessary to eliminate or reduce an 

unreasonable risk of injury associated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74911 

6A universal motor runs on AC or DC power and 

uses current and electromagnets to rotate a shaft. 

Universal motors are lightweight, compact, and 

cheaper to produce than induction motors. An 

induction motor runs on AC power, which is used 

to create a rotating magnetic field to induce torque 

on the output shaft. Induction motors are quieter 

and last longer, but are also more expensive. 

with such product’’ and that issuing the 

rule is in the public interest. 15 U.S.C. 

2058(f)(3)(A)&(B). Additionally, if a 

voluntary standard addressing the risk 

of injury has been adopted and 

implemented, the Commission must 

find that the voluntary standard is not 

likely to eliminate or adequately reduce 

the risk of injury, or substantial 

compliance with the voluntary standard 

is unlikely. The Commission also must 

find that expected benefits of the rule 

bear a reasonable relationship to its 

costs, and that the rule imposes the least 

burdensome requirements that prevent 

or adequately reduce the risk of injury 

for which the rule is being promulgated. 

15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3)(D)–(F). 

III. The Product 

A. Types of Table Saws 

Table saws are stationary power tools 

used for the straight sawing of wood and 

other materials. The basic design of a 

table saw consists of a motor-driven saw 

blade that protrudes through a flat table 

surface. To make a cut, the operator 

places the workpiece on the table and, 

using a rip fence or miter gauge as a 

guide, pushes the workpiece into the 

blade (see Figure 1). 

Table saws generally fall into three 

product types: bench saws, contractor 

saws, and cabinet saws. Although there 

are no exact distinctions among these 

types of saws, the categories are 

generally based on size, weight, 

portability, power transmission, and 

price. Some industry participants use 

additional specialized descriptions, 

such as ‘‘jobsite saws,’’ ‘‘hybrid saws,’’ 

and ‘‘sliding saws.’’ 

Bench saws are intended to be 

transportable, so they tend to be small, 

lightweight, and relatively inexpensive. 

In recent years, bench saw designs have 

evolved to include saws with larger and 

heavier-duty table surfaces, with some 

attached to a folding stand with wheels 

to maintain mobility. These larger 

portable saws on wheeled stands are 

commonly called ‘‘jobsite saws’’ 

because they are capable of heavier-duty 

work but still portable enough to move 

to work sites. Bench saws are generally 

powered using standard house voltage 

(110–120 volts), use universal motors,6

drive the saw blade through gears, and 

range in weight from 34 pounds to 133 

pounds. The universal motor and gear 

drive produce the high decibel noise 

and vibration that are distinctive 

characteristics of bench saws. Prices for 

bench saws range from $129 to as much 

as $1,499 for a high-end model. Based 

on available information, bench saws 

account for approximately 79 percent of 

the table saw market by volume. 

Since the 2017 NPR was published, 

cordless battery-powered bench saws 

have been introduced widely to the 

table saw market. The first cordless 

table saw came to market in 2016, and 

at least three other brands have been 

introduced in the last few years. 

Cordless table saws typically run on 

lithium-ion batteries that range from 18 

volts to 60 volts and are equipped with 

8.25-inch blades with thinner kerfs to 

reduce friction while cutting. Prices for 

battery-powered bench saws range from 

$299 to $599 for the tool only, and the 

accompanying battery prices range from 

$50 to $150. 

Contractor saws are larger and more 

powerful than bench saws, and range in 

weight from approximately 200 to 400 

pounds. Although most contractor saws 

are stationary, a mobile base can be 

added to the frame. Contractor saws are 

often used in home workshops as a less 

expensive alternative to stationary 

cabinet saws. Contractor saws generally 

use a 10-inch blade, are powered using 

standard house voltage, use induction 

motors, and are belt driven. Compared 

to a bench saw, the induction motor and 

belt drive result in a table saw that 

produces less vibration and is quieter, 

more accurate, able to cut thicker pieces 

of wood, and more durable. Prices for 

contractor saws range from around $599 

to $2,000, and contractor saws account 

for approximately 15 percent of the 

table saw market by volume of units 

sold. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP01NO23.037</GPH>

,Splittet/Spreader 

Figure 1. Typical table saw components 
74912 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

7PTI comment (CPSC–2011–0074–1343) in 

response to notification of availability of 2017 

Special Study. Retrieved from: https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2011-0074- 

1343. 

8Table Saw Update 2019. Available at: https://

www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ 

Table%20Saw%20Update%202019.pdf. 

Cabinet saws—also referred to as 

stationary saws—are the largest, 

heaviest, and most powerful of the three 

table saw types, and are typically the 

highest grade saw found in home 

woodworking shops. Cabinet saws 

generally use a 10-inch blade, are 

powered using 220–240 volts, use a 

1.75–5 horsepower or stronger motor 

enclosed in a cabinet, are belt driven, 

and weigh from around 300 pounds to 

1,000 pounds. Components in cabinet 

saws are designed for heavy use and 

durability, and the greater weight 

further reduces vibration so that cuts are 

smoother and more accurate. Cabinet 

saws have an average product life of 

more than 20 years, and prices range 

from approximately $1,399 to $5,000. 

Based on available information, cabinet 

saws account for approximately 6 

percent of the table saw market by unit 

volume. 

B. Standard Safety Devices 

In the 2017 NPR, the Commission 

described common safety devices on 

table saws that are designed to reduce 

contact between the saw blade and the 

operator. 82 FR at 22192. As described 

in the NPR, these devices generally fall 

into two categories: (1) blade guards, 

and (2) kickback-prevention devices 

including splitters, riving knives, and 

anti-kickback pawls. 

The riving knife and modular blade 

guard represent the latest safety 

measures that have been incorporated 

into the voluntary standards for table 

saws. Blade guards surround the 

exposed blade and function as a 

physical barrier between the blade and 

the operator. Riving knives are curved 

metal plates that physically prevent the 

two halves of a cut workpiece from 

moving back towards each other and 

punching the splitting blade, which 

could cause the operator to lose control 

of the workpiece. The Power Tool 

Institute (PTI), the industry trade group 

that represents manufacturers of 

consumer-grade table saws, has 

estimated that in 2017, 80 percent of 

bench saws, 33 percent of contractor 

saws, and 25 percent of cabinet table 

saws sold were equipped with modular 

blade guards and riving knives.7

C. Active Injury Mitigation (AIM) 

Technology 

The 2017 NPR described an AIM 

system that detects imminent or actual 

human contact with the table saw blade 

and then performs an action to prevent 

or mitigate the severity of the injury. 

The NPR described two AIM systems 

available at the time: the SawStop 

system and the Bosch REAXX system. 

See 82 FR at 22193–94. On July 16, 

2015, SawStop filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC) a 

complaint against Bosch for patent 

infringement, and requested that the ITC 

order U.S. Customs to exclude Bosch 

REAXX saws from entering the U.S. 

market. On January 27, 2017, the ITC 

issued an order prohibiting Bosch from 

importing and selling Bosch REAXX 

saws, based on a determination that 

Bosch had infringed on two SawStop 

patents. See 82 FR 9075. 

Since the 2017 NPR was published, 

CPSC staff has become aware of another 

AIM technology called the preventative 

contact system (PCS), developed by the 

Felder Group. The PCS detects motion 

by using a capacitive field around the 

blade, which can detect movement 

before a body part contacts the blade. 

Marketing of the system indicates that 

its detection system works for fast and 

slow body part movement and reacts to 

impending blade contact by retracting 

the blade below the table surface in 

milliseconds. Retraction of the blade is 

achieved by reversing the polarity of 

two strong electro-magnets that hold the 

blade arbor in place. Two magnets with 

the same magnetic poles will repel each 

other, and this action moves the saw 

blade below the tabletop fast enough to 

prevent injury to a body part that would 

otherwise contact the rotating saw 

blade. The PCS system is available as an 

option on Felder’s most expensive 

sliding table saw. 

IV. Risk of Injury 

A. Description of Hazard 

In 2017, CPSC staff conducted a 

Special Study of emergency departmenttreated table saw blade-contact injuries, 

in order to collect data on saw types, 

incident details, and injury 

characteristics that are otherwise not 

available in the standard National 

Electronic Injury Surveillance System 

(NEISS) data collections. The 2017 

Study provided detailed information 

based on a snapshot of incidents that 

occurred in a single year. In 2017, there 

were an estimated 26,500 table saw 

blade-contact, emergency departmenttreated injuries. Of these, an estimated 

25,600 injuries (96.4 percent) involved 

the finger. The estimated number of 

injuries for each of the most common 

diagnoses in blade-contact injuries 

were: 16,100 lacerations (60.9 percent), 

5,500 fractures (20.6 percent), and 2,800 

amputations (10.7 percent). 

B. NEISS Trend Analysis 

In the 2017 NPR briefing package, 

CPSC staff assessed trends for table saw 

blade-contact injuries reported through 

NEISS and concluded that there was no 

discernible change in the number or 

types of blade-contact injuries 

associated with table saws annually 

from 2004 to 2015. No statistically 

significant trend was detected in any of 

the analyses for the number of bladecontact injuries, amputations, 

hospitalizations, and finger/hand 

injuries. Staff also conducted a trend 

analysis to include the rate of injury per 

10,000 table saws in use for each year 

in the analysis. The analysis again 

showed that there was no discernible 

change in the risk of injury associated 

with blade contact related to table saws 

from 2004 to 2015. See Staff NPR 

Briefing Package at 25–29. 

In the 2019 Status Update briefing 

package, CPSC staff updated the NEISS 

trend analyses. Staff assessed trends for 

table saw blade-contact injuries, 

amputations, hospitalizations, and 

finger/hand injuries, and concluded 

once more that there was no discernible 

change in the number of blade-contact 

injuries or types of injuries related to 

table saw blade contact, this time for the 

period 2004 to 2018.8 Trend analysis for 

the rate of injury per 10,000 table saws 

in use also showed that there was no 

discernible change in the risk of injury 

associated with blade contact related to 

table saws from 2004 to 2018, despite 

the increasing percentage of saws sold 

with modular blade guards and riving 

knives. 

For this supplemental NPR, staff 

performed trend analyses for bladecontact injuries, amputations, 

hospitalizations, and finger/hand 

injuries up to 2021. The voluntary 

standards in place have required 

modular blade guards since the 

publishing of UL 987, 7th edition, 

which had an effective date of January 

2010. The date ranges for the trend 

analyses cover a timespan when an 

increasing proportion of table saws in 

use were equipped with modular blade 

guards (2010 to 2021), as well as the 

approximate period during which table 

saws equipped with traditional blade 

guards were no longer being produced 

(2015 to 2021). Table 1 provides the 

estimated number of emergency 

department-treated injuries associated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74913 

with table saw blade contact from 2010 

through 2021. 

TABLE 1—NEISS ESTIMATES FOR TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES, 2010–2021 

Year 

Table saw blade contact injury estimates 

N Estimate CV 95% Confidence 

interval 

2021 ......................................................................................................................................... 655 30,000 0.10 24,100–35,900 

2020 ......................................................................................................................................... 689 34,600 0.10 27,800–41,300 

2019 ......................................................................................................................................... 627 30,300 0.09 24,900–35,700 

2018 ......................................................................................................................................... 649 31,300 0.09 25,500–37,100 

2017 ......................................................................................................................................... 654 31,300 0.09 25,800–36,700 

2016 ......................................................................................................................................... 646 30,000 0.09 25,000–35,000 

2015 ......................................................................................................................................... 642 30,800 0.09 25,100–36,500 

2014 ......................................................................................................................................... 631 30,300 0.08 25,300–35,300 

2013 ......................................................................................................................................... 662 29,500 0.09 24,500–34,500 

2012 ......................................................................................................................................... 648 29,500 0.09 24,100–34,900 

2011 ......................................................................................................................................... 362 29,600 0.09 24,300–35,000 

2010 ......................................................................................................................................... 657 30,100 0.10 24,000–36,200 

Source: U.S. CPSC: NEISS. 

Figure 2 provides the estimated bladecontact injuries associated with table 

saws and the fitted trend line with a 95 

percent confidence band for the fitted 

line from 2010 through 2021. The pvalue associated with the slope of the 

fitted line is 0.44, which indicates that 

there is not a statistically significant 

trend in blade-contact injuries 

associated with table saws over this 

timeframe. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

Figure 3 provides the estimated bladecontact injuries associated with table 

saws and the fitted trend line with a 95 

percent confidence band for the fitted 

line from 2015 through 2021. The pvalue associated with the slope of the 

fitted line is 0.79, which indicates that 

there is not a statistically significant 

trend in blade-contact injuries 

associated with table saws over this 

timeframe, despite the market shift 

during this time to table saws with 

modular blade guards and riving knives. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP01NO23.038</GPH>

Figur~~: .. _!r.~~~-!':i~~S.iS..°-!!_1:t~!~~ll:~-~!ll:~~~«:'!;1!_1:t~:1--!~!ll:!~~ !1:tJ~'::i.~8.'-~.~!~-2021 

50,000 

45,000 

40,000 

·=· 35,000 f 

30,000 

25,000 

.20,000 

2010 

1 

Trend Analysis of Table Saw Blad• Contact Injuries, 2010-2021 

2011 

y=a+px+e 

Ho:P =O 

pvalue = 0;44 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2-021 

Yeaf 

j 

l 

t ........... , .. __ ~_ l11195'lliConlldenceBalid --TremlUne o·lnJ~~=~~~-·---·-···-·J 

Source: U.S. CPSC: NEISS 
74914 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

To assess any changes over time in 

the severity of table saw blade-contact 

injuries, CPSC staff performed trend 

analyses for blade-contact amputations, 

hospitalizations (including patients who 

were treated and admitted to the same 

hospital, as well as treated and 

transferred to a different hospital), and 

finger/hand injuries from 2010–2021 

and 2015–2021. No statistically 

significant trend was detected in any of 

these analyses. Table 2 provides the 

total estimated number of blade-contact 

injuries from 2010 through 2021 for 

amputations, hospitalizations, and 

finger/hand injuries from blade contact, 

and expresses those numbers as a 

percentage of all estimated bladecontact injuries. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP01NO23.039</GPH>

Figure 3. Trend Analysis of Table Saw Blade-Contact-Related Injuries, 2015-2021 

Trencl Analysis of Table Saw B1.acle Contact Injuries, 2015-2021 

50;000• 

45,000 

40;000 

y=a+Px+e 

Ho:P=O 

pvalue = 0.79 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74915 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 

Table 3 provides an estimate of bladecontact injuries per 10,000 table saws in 

use for each year in the analysis. Figure 

4 provides the trend analysis results for 

that data. The p-value associated with 

the slope of the fitted line is 0.86, which 

indicates that there is not a statistically 

significant trend. When limiting the 

trend analysis to the years 2015–2021, 

the p-value associated with the slope of 

the fitted line becomes 0.17, which also 

indicates the nonexistence of a 

statistically significant trend. Possible 

changes in usage patterns of table saws 

were not considered in these analyses. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP01NO23.040</GPH>

Table 2. NEISS Injury Estimates for Table Saw Blade-Contact Amputations, 

Hospitalizations, and Finger/Hand Injuries, 2010-2021 

2021 3,400 11.2% 2,000 6.7% 29,100 97.1% (2,200-4,500) (1,200-2,900} {23,400-34,800) 

2020 4,700 13.6% 3,200 9.3% 34,100 98.8% (3,200-6,300) (2, 100-4,300) (27,400-40,800) 

2019 4,700 15.4% 2,400 7.8% 29,700 98.3% (3,200-6, 100) (1,500-3,200) (24,300-35, 100} 

2018 4,400 13.9% 3,100 10.0% 30,600 97.8% (3, 100-5,600) (2, 100-4,200) (24,900-36,400) 

2017 4,800 15.4% 2,800 8.9% 30,400 97.4% (3,200-6,400) {1,700-3,900) (25, 100-35,800) 

2016 4,000 13.2% 3,500 11.8% 29,600 98.5% (2,600-5,300) {2, 100-5,000) (24,600-34,500) 

2015 4,700 15.2% 3,800 12.3% 30,500 99.1% (3, 100-6,300) (2,300-5,300) (24,900-36,100) 

2014 4,000 13.1% 3,100 10.1% 29,400 97.2% (2,400-5,500) (1,700-4,400) (24,600-34,300) 

2013 3,400 11.7% 3,000 10.2% 29,200 99.2% (2,300-4,600) (1,800-4,200} (24,300-34,200) 

2012 4,100 13.9% 2,900 9.8% 29,100 98.7% (2,700-5,600) (1,300-4,400) (23,700-34,400) 

2011 3,900 13.2% 2,900 9.9% 29,400 99.3% (2,700-5, 100) {1,900-3,900) (24,200-34,700) 

2010 3,500 11.6% 2,800 9.2% 29,800 99.2% (2,500-4,500) (2,000-3,600) (23,700-36,000) 

Source: U.S. CPSC: NEISS 
74916 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES PER 10,000 TABLE SAWS IN USE, 2010–2021 

Year 

Table saw blade contact 

injury estimates 

Estimated number 

of table saws in use 

(in 10,000s) * 

Estimates ** of table saw 

blade contact injury per 

10,000 table saws in use 

Blade contact 

injury 

estimate 

95% 

Confidence 

interval 

Table saws in 

use estimate Estimate 

95% 

Confidence 

interval 

2021 ..................................................... 30,000 24,100–35,900 1003.9 29.9 24.0–35.7 

2020 ..................................................... 34,600 27,800–41,300 883.6 39.1 31.5–46.8 

2019 ..................................................... 30,300 24,900–35,700 849.8 35.6 29.3–42.0 

2018 ..................................................... 31,300 25,500–37,100 828.6 37.8 30.8–44.8 

2017 ..................................................... 31,300 25,800–36,700 820.3 38.1 31.5–44.7 

2016 ..................................................... 30,000 25,000–35,000 822.2 36.5 30.4–42.6 

2015 ..................................................... 30,800 25,100–36,500 827.4 37.2 30.3–44.1 

2014 ..................................................... 30,300 25,300–35,300 831.3 36.4 30.4–42.5 

2013 ..................................................... 29,500 24,500–34,500 838.2 35.2 29.3–41.1 

2012 ..................................................... 29,500 24,100–34,900 847.4 34.8 28.4–41.1 

2011 ..................................................... 29,600 24,300–35,000 855.6 34.7 28.4–40.9 

2010 ..................................................... 30,100 24,000–36,200 866.5 34.7 27.7–41.8 

* CPSC’s Directorate for Economics provided the estimated numbers of table saws in use for this analysis. 

** Estimates are calculated from the exact number of injuries point estimate, not the rounded estimate. 

Based on the foregoing analyses by 

CPSC staff, the Commission concludes 

that there has been no discernible 

change in the pattern of blade-contact 

injuries or types of injuries related to 

table saw blade contact, despite the 

transition of the market to modular 

blade guards and riving knives since 

2010 and the phasing out of traditional 

blade guards since 2015. 

V. Relevant Existing Standards 

A. UL 987 and UL 62841–3–1 

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) 

published the first edition of UL 987 

Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools in 

1971. The UL 987 standard includes 

voluntary requirements for cordconnected and permanently connected 

stationary and light industrial electric 

tools. UL revised the standard several 

times, with the 6th edition in 2005 and 

the 7th edition in 2007 introducing 

significant changes to the requirements 

covering blade guard design. The latest 

8th edition was published in 2011, with 

revisions that clarified the requirements 

for table saws and defined terms 

specific to table saws. 

In 2016, as part of UL’s international 

harmonization goal to adopt 

international standards, UL published 

the first edition of UL 62841–3–1, 

Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held 

Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn 

and Garden Machinery Part 3–1: 

Particular Requirements for 

Transportable Table Saws. In 2019, UL 

removed section 43 (Table Saws) from 

UL 987, leaving UL 62841–3–1 as the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP01NO23.041</GPH>

Figure 4. Blade-Contact Injuries per 10,000 Table Saws in Use Trend Analysis, 2010-2021 

Trend Analysis of the Estimated Slade Contact Injuries per 10,000 Table Saws In Use, 

2010-2021 

y=a+{Jx+e 

Ho:/3 = 0 

pvalue = 0.86 

_,..,,,,,,,,...~....----..-----,---------.... ------"'''"'""""'f""""""""""~"""""''l''~' 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

Year 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74917 

9Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due 

to Blade Contact, UL Research Report, Jan. 2014. 

Available at: http://library.ul.com/wp-content/ 

uploads/sites/40/2015/02/UL_WhitePapers_

Tablesaw_V11.pdf. 

10Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John 

Stimitz, UL, dated March 24, 2015. Retrieved from: 

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSClettertoUL

commenttoAIMSproposalwenclosures.pdf. 11Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John 

Stimitz, UL, dated March 11, 2016. Retrieved from: 

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSClettertoUL

commenttoAIMS.pdf. 

12Comment from Sarah Owen on behalf of UL in 

response to 2017 NPR. Retrieved from: https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2011-0074- 

1275. 

13PTI comment (CPSC–2011–0074–1288) in 

response to 2017 NPR. Retrieved from: https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2011-0074- 

1288. 

14Available at https://www.cpsc.gov/content/ 

Commission-Briefing-Package-Proposed-RuleSafety-Standard-Addressing-Blade-Contact-Injurieson-Table-Saws. 

current voluntary standard for table 

saws. UL 62841–3–1 is recognized as an 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) standard and contains 

essentially the same blade guard 

requirements as UL 987. 

Section 19.101 of UL 62841–3–1 

specifies that a table saw shall provide 

‘‘either a saw blade guard mounted to an 

extended riving knife complying with 

19.101.2 or an over-arm saw blade guard 

complying with 19.101.3.’’ Section 

19.101.2 specifies that the guard may 

consist of independent side and top 

barriers and must have openings that 

provide visibility of the blade’s cutting 

edge. This modular guard attaches to the 

riving knife and shall provide coverage 

over the saw blade as determined by a 

probe test. Section 19.103 specifies that 

a table saw shall be equipped with a 

riving knife that is located behind the 

blade at a height below the saw blade 

that allows the riving knife to pass 

freely through the cutting groove of the 

piece being cut. Section 21.106.3 

specifies that an antikickback device 

attached to the riving knife shall be 

easily removable and function 

independently from the blade guard. 

B. Active Injury Mitigation 

Since 2004, table saws have been 

available in the U.S. market with AIM 

capabilities that mitigate injuries when 

a hand or finger makes contact with a 

rotating saw blade. In February 2015, 

UL defined an ‘‘active injury 

mitigation’’ system as an active system 

that serves to mitigate or prevent injury 

from exposure to a rotating saw blade. 

At a basic level, an AIM system for table 

saws must perform two functions: detect 

contact or imminent contact between 

the rotating saw blade and a human 

body part, and react to mitigate injury. 

Detection can be achieved by sensing 

electrical or thermal properties of the 

human body, or visually sensing and 

tracking the human body. 

In 2015 and 2016, UL balloted 

proposals to add AIM system 

requirements for table saws to UL 987 

and UL 62841–3–1, respectively. The 

ballots proposed performance 

requirements that limited the depth of 

cut to a probe simulating a human finger 

to 4 mm or less when introduced to an 

operating saw blade at an approach rate 

of 1 m/s. UL has identified a 4 mm cut 

from the surface of the skin as the 

quantitative threshold separating simple 

and complex lacerations in a human 

finger.9 Simple lacerations can be 

managed at emergency departments 

with little expertise or by simple home 

care because these cuts generally heal 

without complications, while complex 

lacerations require more significant 

medical attention. Although CPSC staff 

expressed support for both ballots,10 11

both ballots failed, and AIM 

requirements were not adopted. 

In July 2017, UL announced the 

availability of its Recommended 

Practice for Determining the Depth of 

Cut on a Test Probe Contacting the 

Spinning Blade of a Table Saw, UL RP 

3002. The Recommended Practice is 

available as a test procedure for 

manufacturers or independent third 

parties to evaluate AIM performance. 

UL stated in its comment to the 2017 

NPR that it chose to publish this 

Recommended Practice because it 

believes the addition of active 

technology on table saws will further 

reduce the incidence of blade-contact 

injuries and represent a marked increase 

in the safety of these devices.12

C. Adequacy of Voluntary Standard in 

Addressing Injuries 

In January 2010, the voluntary 

standard’s modular blade guard 

requirement took effect. Under this 

requirement, all table saws sold in the 

United States shall be equipped with a 

system consisting of a modular guard 

and antikickback device attached to a 

riving knife. In the NPR, the 

Commission noted staff’s conclusion 

that, while the modular blade guard 

system was an improvement over the 

traditional blade guard system, a guard 

is only effective if used, and incident 

data and survey data indicate users 

remove modular blade guards for 

similar reasons (such as improved 

visibility or to make certain types of 

cuts) that they had removed traditional 

blade guards. 

In its comments on the 2017 NPR,13

PTI reported that its analysis of 299 

table saw accidents from 2007 to 2015 

indicated that 35 percent of the 

incidents involved table saws equipped 

with modular blade guards, and over 50 

percent of those users had removed the 

blade guard prior to being injured. 

Similarly, staff conducted a Special 

Study of NEISS table saw incidents that 

occurred from January to December 

2017. A summary of this 2017 Study 

was provided to the Commission in the 

Table Saw Update package in 2019. The 

2017 Study confirmed that the majority 

of injuries occur on table saws without 

a blade guard installed, and that injured 

users of table saws equipped with 

modular blade guards removed the 

blade guard anecdotally at the same rate 

as injured users of table saws equipped 

with traditional blade guards. Further, 

as discussed in section IV of this 

preamble, CPSC staff assessed trends for 

table saw blade-contact injuries, 

amputations, hospitalizations, and 

finger or hand injuries since 2010, and 

concluded that there had been no 

statistically significant change over that 

time period. 

VI. CPSC Staff Testing of AIM Since the 

2017 NPR 

CPSC staff has conducted tests on 

table saws equipped with AIM 

technology, using the test probe and test 

method described in Appendix A of Tab 

A of the 2017 NPR briefing package.14

Staff used a computer-controlled 

electromechanical linear actuator to 

move a probe into the spinning blade of 

a table saw equipped with AIM 

technology. Staff conducted tests at 

varying blade heights and approach 

rates, tests with the ground of the power 

plug disconnected; and proof-of-concept 

evaluations of adding AIM technology 

to a battery-operated bench saw. 

As discussed in section V of this 

preamble, UL identified the threshold 

between simple and severe lacerations 

to the finger as 4 mm from the surface 

of the skin. Because the test probe 

represents human flesh beneath the 

epidermis, staff subtracted the 0.5 mm 

thickness of the epidermal layer of skin 

from that 4 mm threshold value to arrive 

at a maximum allowable depth of cut to 

the test probe of 3.5 mm. 

A. Prior Testing 

In Tab A of the 2017 NPR briefing 

package, CPSC staff presented results of 

tests in which the test probe was 

introduced to an operating saw blade on 

a SawStop JSS–MCA jobsite table saw 

and a Bosch REAXX jobsite table saw. 

Both saws were equipped with 10-inch 

blades and some type of AIM 

technology. As shown in table 4, the 

depth of cut for the SawStop table saw 

tests ranged from 1.5 mm to 2.8 mm, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74918 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

and the depth of cut for the Bosch REAXX table saw tests ranged from 1.8 

mm to 2.5 mm. 

TABLE 4—DEPTH OF CUT VALUES FOR SAWSTOP AND BOSCH TABLE SAWS

Test run Human body network (HBN) capacitance (pF) 

Depth of cut 

(mm) 

SawStop Bosch 

1 ........................................................................................ 50 ..................................................................................... 2.3 2.2 

2 ........................................................................................ 100 ................................................................................... 2.8 2.1 

3 ........................................................................................ 150 ................................................................................... 2.5 1.9 

4 ........................................................................................ 200 ................................................................................... 2.5 2.2 

5 ........................................................................................ 250 ................................................................................... 2.7 2.1 

6 ........................................................................................ 300 ................................................................................... 2.1 1.8 

7 ........................................................................................ 350 ................................................................................... 1.5 2.4 

8 ........................................................................................ 400 ................................................................................... 2.1 2.5 

9 ........................................................................................ 450 ................................................................................... 2.7 2.5 

10 ...................................................................................... 500 ................................................................................... 2.6 2.5 

11 ...................................................................................... Short circuit ...................................................................... 2.6 2.5 

B. Additional Tests at Varying Blade 

Heights 

Staff conducted tests at different blade 

heights on a SawStop JSS–MCA jobsite 

saw. As shown in Figure 5, test results 

indicate a linear relationship between 

depth of cut to the test probe and blade 

height. Staff determined the greatest 

depth of cut occurred when the table 

saw blade was set at its highest setting. 

For this reason, the rule proposed in 

this SNPR specifies that performance 

must be measured with the saw blade 

set at its highest setting, with no bevel 

angle. 

C. Additional Tests at Varying 

Approach Speeds 

The approach rate of the test probe to 

the saw blade represents the speed at 

which a human finger moves toward the 

saw blade during a blade-contact 

incident. Staff conducted tests at 

different approach rates of the probe to 

the blade on a SawStop JSS–MCA 

jobsite saw. As shown in Figure 6, test 

results indicate a linear relationship 

between depth of cut to the test probe 

and approach speed. This linear 

relationship renders testing at multiple 

approach rates redundant, and the 

proposed rule in this SNPR thus 

requires that table saw performance be 

measured at an approach rate of 1 m/s. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP01NO23.042</GPH>

Figure 5. Depth of Cut versus Blade Height (tests conducted on SawStop JSS-MCA jobsite saw) 

Depth of Cut vs. Blade Height 

3.0 

- ::ts E 

E 2,0 -..., 

::, 

u 1.5 

'3 

.c 1.0 15. 

~ o.s 

0.0 

0 0 .. 5 1 1.5 2 

Blade Height (inches) 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74919 

15 50 pF represents the body’s minimum selfcapacitance, and represents a worst-case scenario in 

which the table saw operator is located in such a 

way that the effective capacitance is the body’s 

minimum self-capacitance. See Tab A of the 2017 

NPR briefing package. 

D. Additional Tests With Ground 

Disconnected 

CPSC staff conducted tests with the 

ground plug of the power cord on a 

SawStop JSS–MCA jobsite saw 

disconnected. Test results showed no 

effect on AIM functionality. 

E. Additional Tests of SawStop Compact 

Table Saw 

Comments to the ANPR and the 2017 

NPR questioned whether AIM 

technology can be applied to small 

bench saws. Staff conducted tests with 

an approach rate of 1 m/s on a SawStop 

CTS compact table saw, with an HBN 

capacitance of 50 pF.15 This saw weighs 

68 pounds, is equipped with a 10-inch 

blade, and is the smallest, most portable 

saw SawStop offers. Upon testing, the 

compact table saw equipped with AIM 

technology limited the depth of cut to 

a test probe, when approaching the 

blade at 1 m/s, to less than 3.5 mm. 

F. Additional Tests Demonstrating AIM 

on Cordless Battery-Powered Bench 

Saws 

Since the 2017 NPR was published, 

cordless battery-powered table saws 

have been introduced to the table saw 

market. Cordless table saws typically are 

powered by lithium-ion batteries that 

range from 18 volts to 60 volts and are 

equipped with 8.25-inch blades with 

thinner kerfs compared to typical 10- 

inch blades for corded electric table 

saws. To evaluate the feasibility of 

applying AIM technology on a batterypowered bench saw, staff modified a 33- 

pound battery-powered bench saw 

equipped with an 8.25-inch blade by 

adding lightweight aluminum framing. 

This modification allowed staff to 

position a standard SawStop 10-inch 

brake cartridge at a distance that would 

stop the bench saw’s blade if the brake 

cartridge was activated. The proof-ofconcept testing was designed to evaluate 

the ability of a lightweight batterypowered bench saw to withstand the 

energy of an AIM system activating, so 

the testing did not retract the blade; 

instead, all of the energy required for 

stopping the blade was absorbed by the 

brake cartridge and the bench saw’s 

structure. With the table saw on and the 

blade spinning at full speed, staff 

remotely activated the brake cartridge 

and the bench saw’s blade came to a 

complete stop. The bench saw moved 

approximately 1 inch vertically, but 

there was no damage to the saw or its 

table surface. Based on this testing, 

CPSC staff concluded that a batterypowered bench saw can withstand the 

reaction energy of an AIM system. 

In addition, applying a signal to the 

saw blade can be achieved by using the 

bench saw’s battery and a voltage 

reducer to reduce the battery voltage to 

the voltage required to induce a 

detection signal on the saw blade. CPSC 

staff has noted that battery-powered 

bench saws already use a voltage 

regulator to maintain voltage within 

acceptable limits for the table saw to 

function; therefore, if there is enough 

voltage to operate the bench saw, there 

will also be enough voltage to induce a 

signal on the saw blade. 

VII. Proposed Requirement and 

Changes From 2017 NPR 

Based on staff’s evaluations of NEISS 

incident data, testing conducted prior to 

and subsequent to the publication of the 

2017 NPR, and the comments received 

in response to the NPR and the Special 

Study as discussed in section VIII of this 

preamble, the Commission proposes the 

following revisions to the rule proposed 

in the 2017 NPR: 

• Specifically reference jobsite saws, 

hybrid saws, sliding saws, and batterypowered saws in the definition of ‘‘table 

saw,’’ to better clarify the scope of the 

proposed rule and account for terms 

used by some industry participants; 

• Remove the reference to ‘‘radial 

approach rate’’ from the rule’s 

description of how the test probe must 

be introduced to the saw blade, and add 

descriptive language clarifying that 

movement of the test probe shall be 

parallel to the saw’s table surface, with 

the center axis of the probe at a height 

of 15 ± 2 mm above the saw’s table 

surface, as discussed in Response 1 in 

section VIII of this preamble; 

• Require that testing be conducted 

while the spinning saw blade is at its 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP01NO23.043</GPH>

5.0 

iUl 

0 200 

Figure 6. Depth of Cut Versus Approach Speed 

Depth of Cut vs. Approach Speed 

400 000 1000 1200 1400 1600 

Approach Speed (mm/s) 

1800 2.000 
74920 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

maximum height setting, as discussed in 

section VI of this preamble. 

• Revise the rule’s anti-stockpiling

provision to prohibit the manufacture or 

importation of noncompliant table saws 

at a rate greater than 115 percent of the 

rate at which table saws were 

manufactured or imported during the 

12-month period prior to promulgation

of the final rule, rather than 120 percent

of the rate at which saws were

manufactured during any 12-month

period in the five years preceding

promulgation, to more closely match the

growth rate of the table saw market over

the last three years.

This SNPR also proposes to change 

the CFR part number to 1264. 

While the proposed rule establishes 

performance requirements intended to 

mitigate the risk of injury associated 

with contacting table saw blades, it does 

not dictate how table saw manufacturers 

must meet those requirements. There 

already are different methods to limit 

the depth of cut to a test probe or finger. 

SawStop stops the blade and allows 

angular momentum to retract it. The 

Bosch REAXX retracts the blade with an 

explosive discharge. Since the 2017 

NPR was published, a system based on 

reverse polarity of electromagnets to 

retract the blade has also been 

introduced to the market. Furthermore, 

manufacturers need not use the 

particular test procedure described in 

this preamble and in Tab A of the 2017 

NPR briefing package, so long as the test 

method they use effectively assesses 

compliance with the standard. Other 

test probes and test methods using a 

different detection system may be 

developed to detect human contact with 

the saw blade and to measure depth of 

cut. 

VIII. Response to Comments

The Commission published the 2017

NPR in the Federal Register on May 12, 

2017. The public comment period 

ended on July 26, 2017. On August 9, 

2017, the Commission held a public 

meeting to hear oral presentations 

concerning the NPR. CPSC received 437 

comments, which can be found at 

regulations.gov, under docket number 

CPSC–2011–0074. Approximately 66 of 

the 437 NPR comments supported 

developing regulatory standards for 

table saws. The other commenters 

generally opposed the rulemaking 

proceeding. On December 4, 2018, the 

Commission published a notice of 

availability of the 2017 Special Study, 

with comment period ending February 

4, 2019. CPSC received 4 comments to 

the 2017 Special Study, which can also 

be found at regulations.gov, under 

docket number CPSC–2011–0074. 

In this section, we describe and 

respond to comments on the 2017 NPR 

and the 2017 Special Study. We present 

a summary of comments by topic, 

followed by the Commission’s response. 

A. Performance Requirements and

Testing Procedure

Comment 1: Bosch and PTI 

commented on the use of the term 

‘‘radial’’ in section 1245.3(b) of the 

NPR’s proposed rule text. Bosch 

commented that a literal interpretation 

of that term would allow manufacturers 

to introduce a probe toward the blade at 

an angle that is likely to result in a 

shallower depth of cut, or no cut at all, 

thus resulting in artificially positive 

testing results. PTI commented that for 

a typical 10′′ diameter blade table saw, 

advancing the test probe along the 

tabletop at an approach velocity of 1 m/ 

s would lead to slightly less than 900 

mm/s in the radial direction towards the 

center of the blade. 

Response 1: CPSC staff agrees the 

descriptor ‘‘radial’’ can be misleading. 

For improved clarity, the rule proposed 

in this supplemental NPR omits that 

term from its performance requirement. 

The rulemaking instead describes a 

frontal approach to the saw blade, 

which is adjusted to its highest setting, 

with the center axis of the test probe 

parallel to the table saw top surface, 15 

± 2 mm above the table saw top surface,

and perpendicular to the direction of

approach to the saw blade. See

Appendix A to Tab A of the NPR

briefing package for an illustrated

example of this configuration.

Comment 2: Bosch and PTI 

commented that the geometry of the test 

probe specified in rule proposed in the 

NPR may lead to inappropriately deep 

cut measurements because the contact 

area available for charge transfer is less 

on a square probe than on a cylindrical 

probe. This limited contact area may 

delay detection and lead to a deeper 

depth of cut on the test surrogate than 

would be experienced by a cylindrical 

probe that more closely resembles a 

finger. 

Response 2: CPSC staff used a cuboidshaped test probe made of conductive 

silicone rubber because the probe had 

already been developed by UL in its 

own testing of AIM technology and was 

readily available. Staff’s tests using the 

square probe resulted in cuts less than 

3 mm deep, and the commenter 

provided no evidence that a cylindrical 

probe will detect and trigger an AIM 

system faster than a square probe. In 

addition, body parts that may contact a 

saw blade, such as the fingertip, are not 

always cylindrical. 

However, under §§ 1264.3 and 1264.4 

of the proposed rule, testers may use a 

cylindrical probe as proposed by Bosch 

and PTI, rather than the square or 

cuboid probe used in UL’s test 

methodology, as long as it possesses 

characteristics that render it a suitable 

surrogate for a human finger. The March 

2015 UL Research Report referenced in 

PTI’s comment recommends that a 

surrogate finger possess the following 

general characteristics: 

• Triggering: An ability to trigger the

selected safety mechanism upon finger 

contact with (or in very close proximity 

to) the blade; 

• Clean Cut: Material properties that

allow the surrogate finger to exhibit a 

clean cut upon contact with the blade; 

and 

• Finger Setup Rigidity: The rigidity

of the surrogate finger setup should 

minimize bending during blade contact 

with a minimum rigidity of 70 kN/m. 

Comment 3: Bosch commented that 

the test probe is not an accurate 

representation of the human body. 

Bosch stated that if a test probe were 

made from pure zinc or tin and 

connected to Earth through a lowresistance cable, then it would transfer 

charge better than a connection made to 

a human being, which could lead to 

AIM technology performing better in the 

test lab than in real-world conditions. 

Response 3: The test method 

described in Tab A of the 2017 NPR 

briefing package is based on triggering a 

capacitance-based AIM system with a 

conductive test probe that is coupled to 

a human body network (HBN), which is 

a circuit that mimics the human body. 

The HBN uses a series of capacitors and 

resisters to replicate the human body’s 

impedance, the property that triggers a 

capacitance-based AIM system. When 

the test probe, connected to the HBN, 

contacts the blade of a table saw 

equipped with a capacitance-based 

AIM, the HBN changes the signal on the 

saw blade and triggers the AIM system. 

Whether the probe is made from metal 

(as posited by this comment) or 

conductive rubber (as used in staff’s 

testing) is not significant, because, based 

on CPSC staff’s testing, the material of 

the probe has minimal effect on 

impedance compared to the series 

combinations of the HBN and especially 

the series capacitance. 

Comment 4: PTI commented that the 

rule proposed in the NPR is inconsistent 

with the February 2015 and February 

2016 UL ballot proposals, which 

required testing at variable approach 

rates, including rates both above and 

below 1 m/s. PTI suggested that testing 

at higher approach rates is necessary 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74921 

16 Gass, S. (2012). Retrieved from: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=CPSC-2011- 

0074-1106. 

because higher approach rates result in 

more severe injuries. 

Response 4: As discussed in section 

VI of this preamble, the results of staff’s 

testing indicate a linear relationship 

between approach rate and depth of cut. 

In fact, the UL ballot proposals included 

approach rates and maximum depth of 

cuts that had a linear relationship. This 

linear relationship renders testing at 

approach rates greater than or less than 

1 m/s redundant, as it is expected that 

higher or lower rates will result in 

correspondingly more or less severe 

injuries. 

In addition, the available data on 

approach rates during both kickback 

and non-kickback-related table saw 

blade-contact incidents indicate the 

approach rate is unlikely to exceed 

0.368 m/s.16 Likewise, victim response 

information from the 2017 Special 

Study indicates that in the majority of 

cases, approximately 57 percent, blade 

contact did not involve the victim’s 

hand being pulled into the blade. Of 

those cases, 46 percent involved 

‘‘reaching to do, or for, something,’’ and 

in 17 percent ‘‘the victim’s hand was fed 

into the blade.’’ CPSC staff advises that 

these descriptors indicate that 

movement of the operator’s hand during 

blade contact was below an approach 

rate of 1 m/s. 

Comment 5: PTI commented that the 

Commission’s test protocol needs 

additional specifications to ensure 

repeatability and reliability. 

Response 5: CPSC has not received 

specific support for PTI’s assertion that 

the test protocol is not repeatable or 

reliable. On the contrary, staff’s testing 

of four different table saws equipped 

with AIM technology has shown that 

the protocols in the test method are 

sound and repeatable. 

Comment 6: PTI commented that the 

test procedure proposed in the NPR is 

incomplete because it does not specify 

the required distance between the probe 

holder and the plane of the saw blade 

and does not specify the required 

stiffness of the stabilizing strip 

supporting the probe. PTI also 

commented that, due to probe flexing, 

results are not repeatable. 

Response 6: The test procedure 

intentionally does not prevent testers 

from using a different probe or testing 

setup from the one described in Tab A 

of the NPR briefing package, but instead 

allows different setups that have a 

minimum rigidity of 70 kN/m. The 

tester is at liberty to design the probe 

holder attachment to the linear actuator 

to ensure that the probe remains secure 

within the holder and approaches the 

saw blade in accordance with the 

requirements of the rulemaking. Staff’s 

testing has shown that results produced 

by the test method are repeatable. 

B. Effectiveness of Proposed Rule 

Comment 7: Bosch commented that 

AIM-equipped table saws can require a 

properly grounded outlet, but properly 

grounded outlets may not be available 

on new jobsites or while working on 

sites with old electrical systems. Bosch 

suggests that this can affect the 

functioning of the AIM system and 

reduce its effectiveness in mitigating the 

risk of injury. 

Response 7: Staff conducted tests with 

AIM-equipped table saws, and the 

results showed that the AIM system was 

effective without being connected to a 

properly grounded outlet. 

Comment 8: PTI commented that UL 

and CPSC staff have recognized that 

there will be accidents where AIM 

technology cannot prevent severe 

injury. PTI questions how much the 

assumed effectiveness of AIM 

technology should be reduced in light of 

such accidents, and whether the 

Commission has taken this into account 

in its economic benefit-cost analysis. 

Response 8: A performance 

requirement limiting the depth of cut to 

a test probe that contacts a saw blade to 

3.5 mm will significantly reduce the 

number of severe injuries associated 

with operator blade-contact incidents on 

table saws. Lacerations less than 3.5 mm 

from the surface of the skin will not 

damage nerves or arteries, which would 

require surgery, and will not result in 

fractures, amputations, or avulsions. 

Consistent with the hazard patterns 

identified in the 2017 Special Study and 

data provided by SawStop 

demonstrating that over 7,000 

activations of the SawStop AIM 

technology resulted in no severe 

injuries, CPSC assesses that nearly all 

severe injuries involving operator-blade 

contact from table saws can be mitigated 

by the proposed performance 

requirements. Accordingly, this 

supplemental NPR’s preliminary 

regulatory analysis conservatively 

assumes AIM technology is 90 percent 

effective in reducing the societal costs of 

blade-contact injuries. 

Comment 9: Several commenters, 

including Robert Witte, Rob Degagne, 

and Kenny Smith, stated that most table 

saw injuries are caused by kickback of 

the workpiece, but the SawStop system 

does not prevent kickback. Others stated 

that riving knives eliminate kickback 

and therefore can prevent or mitigate 

most injuries. 

Response 9: The Commission’s 

analysis of blade-contact incidents 

indicates that there are many scenarios 

in which an operator’s finger or hand 

can contact a table saw blade, and there 

are certain cuts on table saws that 

require removal of the blade guard. 

Sudden movement of the workpiece 

from kickback can cause the operator to 

lose control of the workpiece and cause 

the hand to fall into or be pulled into 

the blade. However, contact is also 

possible without kickback, for instance 

when the operator’s hand gets too close 

to the blade while feeding a small 

workpiece, when the operator is 

distracted, when the blade catches the 

operator’s glove and pulls the operator’s 

hand into the blade, when the operator 

reaches to regain control of a workpiece, 

or when the operator brushes debris 

from the table while the blade is still 

spinning after shutoff. 

Based on incident information from 

the 2017 Special Study, PTI, and 

SawStop’s activation data, CPSC staff 

assesses that most blade-contact injuries 

are not related to kickback, and in 

almost all instances AIM systems 

prevented serious injury, whether or not 

kickback was a factor. 

In addition, although riving knives 

can reduce the potential for kickback, 

they do not eliminate table saw injuries. 

Information from the 2017 Special 

Study indicated that when blade guards 

were in use, 28 percent of the incidents 

occurred on table saws equipped with a 

riving knife. PTI’s comments to the 2017 

NPR indicate that only 17 percent of 

accidents reported to PTI members from 

2007 to 2015 involved kickback. Finally, 

of the accidents reported to PTI, 49 

percent of the table saws involved were 

equipped with riving knives. 

C. Benefits and Costs 

Comment 10: Many commenters 

stated that the costs associated with the 

proposed rule are not justified because 

the cost to consumers outweighs the 

benefit of increased table saw safety. 

Response 10: As discussed in detail in 

section X of this preamble, the 

estimated benefits from the proposed 

rule far exceed the estimated costs. 

Using a 3 percent discount rate, 

aggregate net benefits range from 

approximately $1.28 billion to $2.32 

billion. 

Comment 11: Many commenters, 

including hobbyist woodworkers and 

owners of small woodworking 

businesses, asserted that a standard 

mandating the inclusion of AIM 

technology in table saws will increase 

the price of table saws and make them 

unaffordable for many individuals, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74922 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

small businesses, and other groups of 

concern. 

Response 11: As discussed in section 

X of this preamble, CPSC staff estimates 

that the prices for the least expensive 

bench saws now currently available will 

more than double to $400 or more. In 

general, the retail prices of bench saws 

could increase by as much as $285 to 

$700 per unit, and the retail prices of 

contractor and cabinet saws could rise 

by as much as $450 to $1,000 per unit. 

In addition, potential adverse impacts 

on the utility of table saws could come 

in the form of consumers who choose 

not to purchase table saws due to price 

increases, and a loss of portability due 

to the increased weight and (potentially) 

size of table saws to accommodate AIM 

technology. The Commission seeks 

comment on all aspects of the SNPR’s 

proposal, including the effects of the 

expected price increases on consumers 

generally, or specific groups of 

consumers. 

Comment 12: Some commenters, 

including hobbyist woodworkers, small 

business owners, and the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration, expressed concern with 

the potential effects of the proposed rule 

on small businesses, and in particular 

whether the proposed rule could 

dissuade the creation of small 

businesses. 

Response 12: While the proposed rule 

has no direct effect on regulations or 

laws concerning small business 

creation, the rulemaking would affect 

small businesses that produce table 

saws by prohibiting the sale of table 

saws without an AIM system. This 

prohibition could cause some 

businesses to exit the table saw market 

and could indirectly act as a barrier to 

market entry. Should the holders of 

patents for AIM technologies refuse to 

license the technologies, firms would 

either have to develop their own 

technology or leave the table saw 

market. This could raise the general cost 

to start a small business, possibly to a 

significant extent. However, there 

appear to be multiple, competing AIM 

technologies already available, and 

adoption of the proposed rule could 

speed the development of additional 

AIM technology options, leading to 

greater licensing opportunities for table 

saw manufacturers. 

Comment 13: Some commenters, 

including Nicholas Vanaria and Jarrett 

Maxwell, expressed concern that the 

proposed rule might incentivize U.S. 

table saw manufacturers to move their 

operations to other countries, resulting 

in domestic job loss. 

Response 13: CPSC is not aware of 

any specific information or data 

supporting the speculative possibility 

that manufacturers might relocate to 

other countries in response to the 

proposed rule. In addition, the proposed 

rule would apply to all table saws 

imported into the United States, 

regardless of their place of manufacture, 

and relocating manufacturing operations 

to a different country would thus not 

exempt them from the rule. The 

Commission therefore finds it unlikely 

that the proposed rule would 

incentivize foreign relocation of U.S. 

businesses to any significant extent. 

Comment 14: Several commenters, 

including Keith Nuttle, Scott Moore, 

Mark Strauch, and Christopher Fray, 

stated that the risk of injury as 

discussed in the 2017 NPR and the 

Special Study should have been 

expressed in terms of the number of cuts 

made or exposure to table saws, rather 

than the number of table saws. 

Commenters stated that millions of cuts 

are made every year without incident. 

Response 14: CPSC analyzed the risk 

of injury using the estimated number of 

table saws in use for each year because 

that is relevant data to which the 

Commission staff has access. 

Commenters did not provide sufficient 

data on risks per cut or exposure for 

staff to perform an analysis using those 

metrics. 

D. Consumer Choice and User Behavior 

Comment 15: Numerous commenters, 

including hobbyists and professional 

woodworkers, stated that table saw 

users should apply common sense when 

operating a table saw and accept the risk 

of using the tool. The commenters stated 

that the federal government should not 

regulate consumer choice or behavior. 

While most of these commenters stated 

that they want table saws equipped with 

AIM technology to be available, and 

some even stated that they own a 

SawStop saw, they supported 

preserving consumers’ ability to 

evaluate costs and benefits for 

themselves and choose between more 

expensive AIM-equipped table saws and 

less expensive table saws without AIM 

technology. The Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration suggested an alternative 

approach whereby manufacturers could 

continue to produce and sell table saws 

without AIM technology as long as they 

also sell a model equipped with AIM 

technology. 

Response 15: There are some 

situations in the workshop that require 

table saw operators to remove blade 

guards, and an operator’s decision to 

use a table saw without all safety 

devices in operation does not 

necessarily reflect neglect or ignorance. 

There are also many situations in which 

an operator’s finger or hand may contact 

a blade that do not result from operator 

irresponsibility or negligence. Sudden 

movement of the workpiece from 

kickback can cause the operator to lose 

control of the workpiece and a hand to 

fall into or be pulled into the blade. An 

operator may become distracted by 

events outside their control and 

inadvertently contact the blade. Many 

scenarios leading to blade contact 

become more likely if the consumer is 

tired or if the consumer’s view of the 

blade or cut is impaired in some way. 

In these cases, which the proposed rule 

would likely address, operator neglect 

or ignorance would not be the primary 

factor causing the injury. 

As discussed in more detail in section 

X of this preamble, the proposed rule is 

expected to reduce amputations and 

other serious blade-contact injuries with 

a net societal benefit exceeding $1 

billion per year because it would not 

permit table saws on the market which 

are not equipped with AIM technology. 

While staff anticipates that some table 

saw models would be completely 

removed from the market as a result of 

the rule, the proposed rule would also 

substantially reduce the number of 

serious blade-contact injuries involving 

table saws, and their associated societal 

costs. In addressing the blade-contact 

risk, the CPSC considers the costs of 

blade-contact injuries, the utility of 

tables saws, and the impacts of limiting 

consumer choice. Further, the 

Commission has considered alternatives 

to the draft proposed rule that would 

not require all table saws to be produced 

with AIM technology. These alternatives 

are discussed in section X of this 

preamble. 

Comment 16: Several commenters, 

including Robert Witte, Steven 

Schneider, and Bret Jacobsen, stated 

that adding AIM technology to table 

saws will give users a false sense of 

security and therefore increase unsafe 

user behavior with table saws that will 

also translate to injuries on other power 

tools. These commenters expressed 

concern that users will not learn to 

respect the dangers of table saws and 

power tools in general. 

Response 16: While consumers who 

are aware that their table saws use AIM 

technology may react by taking less care 

to protect themselves from serious 

finger and hand injuries, people also 

tend to fear ‘‘dread risks,’’ which can be 

defined as ‘‘low-probability, highconsequence events,’’ and such risks 

have a substantial influence on risk 

perception. Severe injuries from blade 

contact on a table saw that employs an 

AIM system would fall under the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74923 

17Smith, Timothy P., 2016. Human factors 

assessment of blade-contact scenarios and 

responses to ANPR public comments (Tab E of NPR 

Staff Briefing Package). Bethesda, MD: U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission (November 

15, 2016). 

category of a ‘‘dread risk’’ because the 

consequences of such a system failing 

could be quite severe—involving 

possible amputation, which would 

likely evoke visceral feelings of dread or 

horror—even if the probability of such 

a failure is low. In addition, consumers 

likely would be motivated to avoid 

blade contact even if the consequences 

of such contact are not severe, because 

consumers are unlikely to be ambivalent 

about being cut by a spinning blade 

with sharp teeth, even if the resulting 

injury is minor. 

The Commission is not able to predict 

whether consumers will take less care 

when using a table saw with an AIM 

system, relative to current table saws— 

much less whether users’ behavior with 

other power tools might change for the 

worse. However, even if this does come 

to pass, if the AIM system is effective 

then the severity of an injury resulting 

from blade contact will be lessened, 

which would reduce the overall number 

of severe injuries associated with table 

saws. 

Comment 17: Many commenters, 

including Douglas Allen and Robert 

Witte, suggested that, if AIM is required 

for all table saws, then some users might 

modify their saws to bypass the safety 

mechanism. In particular, commenters 

suggested that some users would engage 

in this behavior to avoid the nuisance of 

false activations. 

Response 17: Because AIM technology 

is not expected to interfere with normal 

use of the table saw, most consumers 

would have little or no reason to bypass 

the AIM system once it is already on the 

saw. 

Comment 18: Numerous commenters 

stated that, in order to avoid paying for 

a table saw with additional safety 

features, consumers will likely employ 

more dangerous methods to cut wood by 

using other tools such as circular saws, 

buying used table saws, or continuing to 

use older table saws that are less safe. 

Response 18: The proposed rule will 

increase the price of table saws, and this 

increase is likely to reduce sales. Some 

consumers may hire professionals 

instead of doing projects themselves. 

Others might borrow or rent table saws, 

or use older table saws that they would 

have preferred to replace. Some might 

attempt to use other tools in the place 

of AIM-equipped table saws, as the 

commenters suggest. If the other tools 

and strategies used by consumers are 

more dangerous than table saws 

equipped with AIM technology, the 

effectiveness and societal benefits of the 

proposed rule would be reduced. 

However, as discussed in section X of 

this preamble, even if the proposed rule 

is assumed to be only 70 percent 

effective at mitigating or preventing 

serious injuries, the proposed rule’s 

benefits still substantially exceed its 

costs. 

E. Availability of AIM Technology 

Comment 19: Several commenters, 

including businesses, trade associations, 

and individual table saw consumers, as 

well as the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration, 

stated in response to the 2017 NPR that 

the proposed rule would effectively 

create a monopoly, because it would 

require table saw manufacturers to 

either license the only known effective 

AIM system or exit the table saw 

market. PTI relatedly commented that 

various theoretical detection systems for 

AIM have not yet been invented in a 

practical form that can be integrated 

into table saws. 

Response 19: The Commission is 

aware of three firms that supply, or have 

supplied, the U.S. market with table 

saws equipped with AIM technology. 

These are SawStop (now owned by 

TTS), which equips all of its table saw 

models with AIM technology; Bosch, 

which formerly sold one model that was 

equipped with AIM technology, but 

does not currently sell an AIM-equipped 

table saw in the United States; and the 

Felder Group, which offers a single 

AIM-equipped model. 

However, the proposed rule does not 

specify a particular detection system 

that must be used to meet the 

performance requirement; it instead 

allows manufacturers to use any 

detection system that meets that 

requirement. The implementation of a 

performance requirement instead of a 

technology requirement will encourage 

innovation in the development of new 

technologies. Indeed, in the time since 

the 2017 NPR was published, the Felder 

Group has developed its new 

technology called the preventative 

contact system (PCS), which detects 

motion by creating a capacitive field 

around the blade and reacts to 

impending blade contact by retracting 

the blade below the table surface in 

milliseconds. Retraction of the blade is 

achieved by reversing the polarity of 

two strong electro-magnets that hold the 

blade arbor in place. 

While we are mindful that the current 

suppliers of AIM technologies might be 

able to exert significant power in the 

U.S. table saw market for a period of 

time if the proposed rule is adopted, the 

unusually extended effective date 

proposed in this SNPR (36 months from 

publication of a final rule in the Federal 

Register), together with the 

encouragement of innovation in AIM 

that the rule should produce, 

sufficiently address this concern. We 

seek comment on this analysis. 

F. Voluntary Standards and Other 

Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

Comment 20: Several commenters 

stated that table saw injuries are best 

reduced by training and educating users 

on safe practices and operation of table 

saws. Many commenters believed that 

mandatory training in the form of 

certification is needed. 

Response 20: Warnings are less 

effective at eliminating or reducing 

exposure to hazards than designing the 

hazard out of a product or guarding the 

consumer from the hazard.17 Warnings 

do not prevent consumer exposure to 

the hazard; they instead rely on 

educating consumers about the hazard 

and then persuading consumers to alter 

their behavior in some way to avoid the 

hazard. In addition, warnings rely on 

consumers behaving consistently, 

regardless of situational or contextual 

factors such as fatigue, stress, or social 

influences. Thus, warnings are most 

suitable to supplement, rather than 

replace, redesign or guarding, unless 

those higher-level hazard control efforts 

are not feasible. 

Mandatory training for consumers 

who purchase or use table saws is not 

a solution the Commission would be 

able to implement under its current 

statutory authority. 

Comment 21: PTI stated that the 2017 

Special Study should be understood as 

confirming that the voluntary standards 

process for table saws is working. PTI 

suggests that the Study underestimated 

the benefits of the modular blade guard 

system required by the voluntary 

standard, and PTI believes that the risk 

of injury on a table saw equipped with 

a modular blade guard system is lower 

than reported in the Study. PTI states 

that its own estimates of table saw sales 

and populations, modular blade guard 

market penetration, and table saw 

lifespan differ from the estimates used 

in the Study. 

Response 21: Since the 2017 Special 

Study was published, CPSC staff has 

conducted trend analyses of NEISS 

injuries associated with table saws. In 

every trend analysis, the latest of which 

spans from 2010 to 2021, there is no 

indication that table saw injuries have 

declined, even though table saws 

equipped with modular blade guard 

systems have come to represent the 

majority of the table saw population. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74924 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

This indicates that the voluntary 

standard’s requirement that table saws 

be equipped with modular blade guards 

is not effective in reducing the number 

or severity of table saw injuries. 

Comment 22: In their comments in 

response to the 2017 Special Study, 

Stephen Gass and David Pittle 

questioned whether the Study’s 

conclusion that the risk of a bladecontact injury is seven times greater on 

a table saw equipped with a traditional 

blade guard system than with a modular 

blade guard system is inconsistent with 

CPSC staff’s conclusion that there has 

been no statistically significant 

reduction in blade-contact injuries over 

the time period when table saws 

equipped with modular blade guards 

have saturated the market. 

Response 22: If modular blade guard 

systems reduce the number or severity 

of blade-contact injuries in comparison 

to traditional blade guard systems, a 

detectable decreasing trend should exist 

within the NEISS data over the period 

during which table saws equipped with 

modular blade guards replaced in the 

market those equipped with traditional 

blade guards. In the 2017 NPR, the 

Commission preliminarily concluded 

that no such trend was detectable. This 

SNPR includes further trend analysis 

with data extending through 2021, and 

again identifies no statistically 

significant decreasing trend in the 

number or severity of blade-contact 

injuries. As discussed in section X of 

this preamble, the 2017 Special Study 

represents only a snapshot view of a 

single year, as opposed to the multiple 

trend analyses that were more 

comprehensive and longer-term, and 

there are other significant caveats to the 

Special Study’s finding on this point. 

CPSC staff has determined that the 

voluntary standard has not effectively 

reduced the number or severity of bladecontact injuries, notwithstanding the 

results of the Special Study. 

Furthermore, even taking at face value 

the Special Study’s conclusion that 

blade-contact injuries are roughly seven 

times more likely on table saws 

equipped with traditional blade guard 

systems, tens of thousands of bladecontact injuries continue to occur each 

year, more than a decade after modular 

blade guard requirements were 

incorporated into the voluntary 

standards. Thus, there remains an 

unreasonable risk of serious injury 

associated with table saw use, regardless 

of which type of blade guard system is 

used. 

We seek further comments on this 

issue. 

Comment 23: Several commenters 

stated that CPSC should mandate AIM 

technology on table saws only in 

industrial or workshop settings or 

schools, provide an open license for 

AIM technology, and/or ensure that the 

price of table saws with AIM technology 

decreases as costs for manufactures 

decrease with economies of scale. 

Response 23: The CPSA does not give 

the Commission authority to regulate 

the use of table saws in industrial 

settings, to license patents, or to control 

the cost of products. 

IX. Description of the Proposed Rule 

A. Scope, Purpose, and Effective Date— 

§ 1264.1 

The proposed rule would apply to all 

table saws that are consumer products, 

as defined in the proposed rule, 

including bench saws, contractor saws, 

and cabinet saws. The proposed rule 

would include a requirement to mitigate 

the risk of blade-contact injuries on 

table saws. 

Under section 9(g)(1) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2058(g)(1), the effective date for 

a consumer product safety standard 

must not exceed 180 days from the date 

the final rule is published, unless the 

Commission finds, for good cause, that 

a later effective date is in the public 

interest. As discussed in section XVI of 

this preamble, the Commission finds 

that 180 days is not adequate to allow 

for manufacturers to comply with the 

final rule, or for the rule to have its 

desired effect of promoting the 

development and commercial 

availability of additional AIM 

technologies. The Commission therefore 

proposes an effective date of 36 months 

following Federal Register publication 

of a final rule. The proposed rule 

clarifies that the rule would apply to all 

table saws manufactured after the 

effective date. 

B. Definitions—§ 1264.2 

The proposed rule would provide that 

the definitions in section 3 of the CPSA 

(15 U.S.C. 2051) apply. In addition, the 

proposed rule would define ‘‘table saw’’ 

as: ‘‘a woodworking tool that has a 

motor-driven circular saw blade, which 

protrudes through the surface of a 

table.’’ In order to more precisely define 

the scope of the rule and account for 

additional classifications used by some 

industry participants, the definition has 

been revised from the definition set out 

in § 1245.2 of the rule proposed in the 

NPR to specify that ‘‘[t]able saws 

include bench saws, jobsite saws, 

contractor saws, hybrid saws, cabinet 

saws, and sliding saws,’’ and that 

‘‘[t]able saws may be powered by 

alternating current from a wall outlet or 

direct current from a battery.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposed definition of a table saw. 

C. Requirements for Table Saw Blade 

Contact—§§ 1264.3 and 1264.4 

The proposed rule would require 

table saws, when powered on, to limit 

the depth of cut to 3.5 mm when the 

center axis of the test probe, acting as a 

surrogate for a human finger or other 

body part, is moving parallel to, and is 

15 ± 2 mm above the table top at a rate 

of 1 m/s and contacts the spinning blade 

that is set at its maximum height setting. 

The rule would require that the test 

probe allow for the accurate 

measurement of the depth of cut to 

assess compliance with the proposed 

requirement. 

The composition and form of the test 

probe are not defined. However, any test 

probe that is used should have the 

appropriate properties (such as 

electrical, optical, thermal, 

electromagnetic, ultrasound, etc.) to 

indicate human body/finger contact 

with the saw blade, and the appropriate 

physical properties to accurately 

measure depth of cut. While the test 

probe and test method described in TAB 

A of staff’s 2017 briefing package are 

considered appropriate for the 

evaluation of AIM systems using an 

electrical detection system, the 

Commission does not propose to make 

this test method mandatory, because 

other AIM systems may use a different 

detection approach. For AIM systems 

using a different detection approach, the 

method should be developed based on 

sound material science and engineering 

knowledge to accurately assess 

compliance with the proposed 

requirement. 

A performance requirement that 

limits the depth of cut to 3.5 mm at an 

approach rate of 1 m/s will significantly 

reduce the severe lacerations, fractures, 

amputations, and avulsions associated 

with operator blade-contact incidents on 

table saws, because the probe will have 

the appropriate properties to indicate 

human contact with the saw blade and 

the equivalent injury mitigation on a 

real human finger will avoid most 

microsurgery. 

The Commission recognizes there 

may be some scenarios, such as 

kickback, which can cause the 

operator’s hand to be pulled into the 

blade at a high rate of speed or lead the 

operator to reach as fast as possible for 

a falling workpiece. In these and other 

scenarios, the speed of the operator’s 

hand or finger may exceed 1 m/s when 

it contacts the saw blade. At approach 

speeds greater than 1 m/s, AIM system 

performance may not be sufficient to 

prevent injuries that require extensive 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74925 

18Available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ 

Federal-Register-Notice-Safety-StandardAddressing-Blade-Contact-Injuries-on-Table-SawsSNPR.pdf?VersionId=Ce3FOVBmbG0_

.8j.gd1h0k3VWHZZ.URw. 

19See TAB A of Staff Briefing Package. 

20PTI, 2012. Comment by Susan M. Young for the 

Power Tool Institute, Inc., on ‘‘U.S. Consumer 

Product Commission [Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074] 

Table saw blade contact injuries: Advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking,’’ (March 16, 2012). (Comment 

CPSC–2011–0074–1081, available at: 

regulations.gov). 

medical attention. The use of AIM 

technology may, however, limit injuries 

where an incident otherwise would 

have resulted in an amputation or 

involved injury to several digits or a 

wider area, to permit instead 

microsurgical repair of nerves, blood 

vessels, and tendons. Thus, the 

Commission concludes that nearly all 

operator blade-contact injuries from 

table saws would be eliminated or 

mitigated by the proposed performance 

requirement. 

D. Prohibited Stockpiling—§ 1264.5 

In accordance with section 9 of the 

CPSA, the proposed rule contains a 

provision that would prohibit a 

manufacturer from ‘‘stockpiling,’’ or 

substantially increasing the manufacture 

or importation of noncompliant table 

saws between the promulgation of the 

final rule and its effective date. The 

provision would prohibit a firm from 

manufacturing or importing 

noncompliant table saws at a rate that 

is greater than 115 percent of the rate at 

which the firm manufactured and/or 

imported table saws during the base 

period. The base period is the 12-month 

period immediately preceding the 

promulgation of the final rule. The cap 

on manufacture or importation has been 

reduced from the 120 percent cap 

proposed in the 2017 NPR to reflect the 

growth rate of the table saw market over 

recent years. 

The Commission seeks comments on 

the proposed product manufacture or 

import limits and the base period with 

respect to the anti-stockpiling provision. 

E. Findings in the Appendix to the Rule 

The findings required by section 9 of 

the CPSA are discussed throughout the 

preamble of this proposed rule and 

specifically set forth in the appendix to 

the rule. 

X. Updated Preliminary Regulatory 

Analysis 

The Commission is proposing to issue 

a rule under sections 7 and 9 of the 

CPSA. The CPSA requires that the 

Commission prepare a preliminary 

regulatory analysis and that the 

preliminary regulatory analysis be 

published with the text of the proposed 

rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(c). 

The Commission’s updated 

preliminary regulatory analysis is 

contained in TAB A of staff’s briefing 

package,18 and is summarized in this 

section. 

A. Introduction 

The CPSC is issuing a proposed rule 

to address the unreasonable risk of 

blade-contact injuries associated with 

table saws. This rulemaking proceeding 

was initiated by an ANPR published in 

the Federal Register on October 11, 

2016. In 2015, to enhance CPSC’s 

understanding of the table saw market, 

CPSC staff entered into two contracts 

with Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) to 

conduct market research and cost 

impact analysis on table saws. One 

report, titled ‘‘Revised Final Table Saws 

Market Research Report’’ (March 28, 

2016) (referred to as IEc, 2016a), updates 

information relied upon in the ANPR. 

The report uses publicly available 

information and limited outreach to 

potentially affected entities. The other 

report, titled ‘‘Final Table Saws Cost 

Impact Analysis’’ (June 9, 2016) 

(referred to as IEc, 2016b), estimates the 

manufacturing and other costs of 

possible requirements intended to 

mitigate table saw blade-contact injuries 

based on previous information collected 

by the CPSC in the ANPR, public 

comments, limited interviews with table 

saw manufacturers, additional research, 

and the results of IEc, 2016a. In addition 

to CPSC staff’s analysis of existing data, 

studies, and reports, staff relied on the 

IEc reports for additional data and 

information to support the preliminary 

regulatory analysis (TAB C of the staff 

NPR briefing package) and initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (TAB D of 

the staff NPR briefing package). These 

reports are available on the CPSC 

website at https://www.cpsc.gov/ 

research-statistics/other-technicalreports. 

B. Market Information 

1. Manufacturers 

The Commission has identified 23 

firms that supply table saws to the U. S. 

market.19 PTI estimates that its member 

companies account for 80 percent of all 

table saws sold in the United States.20

Most of these companies are large, 

diversified international corporations 

with billions of dollars in sales, such as 

Stanley Black and Decker, Robert Bosch, 

Makita, TTS, and Techtronic Industries 

Co., Ltd. These five large, diversified 

firms are currently supplying table saws 

to the U.S. market, but table saws make 

up a relatively small part of their 

revenues, probably less than one 

percent in each instance. 

For smaller, more specialized firms, 

table saws are generally not a large 

percentage of firms’ sales. One company 

reported that table saw sales contribute 

a negligible fraction of its $15 million 

annual revenue. IEc, 2016a. Another 

company with an annual revenue of $20 

to $40 million stated that table saws 

represent approximately five percent of 

total sales. Id. A third business CPSC 

staff interviewed attributed seven to 

eight percent of total revenue to table 

saw sales. Id. 

2. Types of Table Saws Commonly Used 

by Consumers 

As discussed in section III of this 

preamble, table saws are generally 

grouped into three categories: bench 

saws, contractor saws, and cabinet saws. 

Bench saws (which include saws 

sometimes referred to as jobsite saws) 

tend to be lightweight and portable, and 

are the least expensive of the three 

categories. Contractor saws are larger, 

heavier, more powerful, and more 

expensive than bench saws. Cabinet 

saws are the heaviest, most powerful, 

and most expensive of the categories. 

Some manufacturers also categorize 

table saws as ‘‘hybrid saws’’ or ‘‘sliding 

saws.’’ Sliding saws are similar to 

cabinet saws, but typically are equipped 

with an extension that allows for the 

cutting of large panels, have advanced 

electronic features, and sometimes 

include a Graphical User Interface (GUI) 

for operation. Nearly all sliding saws 

weigh more than 900 pounds and 

require equipment to move or relocate. 

3. Retail Prices of Table Saws 

The range of prices for table saws 

generally overlaps for three products: 

bench, contractor, and hybrid saws. 

Bench saws are the least expensive, 

ranging in price from $139 to $1,399. 

Prices for contractor saws range from 

$599 to $1,999, and prices for hybrid 

saws range from $895 to $4,279. 

Generally, cabinet and sliding saws are 

more expensive. Prices for cabinet saws 

range from $1,399 to $4,999. The price 

range for sliding table saws is wide, 

with models priced below $3,400 and 

above $25,000. SawStop models 

containing AIM technology are 

consistently priced at the upper end of 

the price range for each of the three 

primary table saw categories (bench, 

contractor, and cabinet). The least 

expensive saw available from SawStop 

is the compact table saw priced at $900. 

The SawStop bench saw is the most 

expensive in the bench saw category at 

$1,599 to $1,799, depending on the 

distributor. Similarly, SawStop 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74926 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

21 Data compiled from tariff and trade data from 

the U.S. Department of Commerce and the ITC for 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification numbers 

8465910036 (Tilting arbor table saw, woodworking) 

and 8465910078 (Sawing machines, woodworking, 

NESOI). See https://hts.usitc.gov. 

22See TAB A of Staff’s Briefing Package for a 

detailed analysis of the expected benefits and costs 

of the proposed rule. 

23Lawrence, BA, Miller, TR, Waejrer, GM, Spicer, 

RS, Cohen, MA, Zamula, WW, 2018. The Consumer 

Product Safety Commission’s Revised Injury Cost 

Model. Maryland: Pacific Institute for Research and 

Evaluation. (February 2018). Available at https://

www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ICM-2018- 

Documentation.pdf?YWuW4Jn0eb2h

ExeA0z68B64cv6LIUYoE. 

contractor saws, ranging in price from 

$1,999 to $2,398, represent some of the 

more expensive models in that product 

category. The SawStop cabinet models 

range in price from $2,899 to $5,949, 

depending on power and performance. 

The Felder Group model equipped with 

AIM technology is priced at the high 

end of the sliding saw price range, with 

prices exceeding $25,000 depending on 

model options/upgrades. 

4. Sales and Numbers in Use

Although the design and engineering 

of table saws may occur in the United 

States, most table saws currently are 

manufactured overseas. Data from the 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

indicates that from 2014 to 2017 

approximately 99 percent of imported 

table saw units were built in Taiwan 

and China. A small volume of expensive 

industrial saws was also imported from 

European and Canadian 

manufacturers.21

CPSC staff estimated the annual 

number of table saws in use with the 

CPSC’s Product Population Model 

(PPM), a statistical model that projects 

the number of products in use given 

examples of annual product sales and 

product failure rates. Total annual 

shipments of all table saws to the U.S. 

market from 2002 to 2017 are estimated 

to have ranged from 429,000 to 825,000, 

and total annual shipments from 2018 to 

2020 are estimated to have ranged from 

746,000 to 995,000. Estimates of 

industry-wide sales value are not 

readily available. CPSC staff estimated 

that bench saws account for about 79 

percent of the units sold, with 

contractor saws (including hybrids) and 

cabinet saws accounting for 

approximately 12 percent and 9 percent, 

respectively. 

Staff calculated an average product 

life of 10 years for bench saws, 17 years 

for contractor saws, and 24 years for 

cabinet saws. Using these parameters, 

staff projected a total of about 8.2 

million table saws in use in the United 

States in 2017, including about 5.35 

million bench saws (about 65 percent), 

1.4 million contractor saws (about 17 

percent), and 1.46 million cabinet saws 

(about 18 percent). 

C. Benefit-Cost Analysis

This section of the analysis consists of

a comparison of the benefits and costs 

of the proposed rule and explains the 

Commission’s preliminary conclusion 

that the expected benefits of the 

proposed rule exceeds its expected costs 

by a wide margin.22 The benefits of the 

proposed rule are measured as the 

estimated reduction in the societal costs 

of injuries resulting from the use of saws 

containing the AIM technology. The 

costs of the proposed rule are defined as 

the added costs associated with the 

incorporation of the AIM technology in 

table saws, including the cost of the 

labor (at both the design and 

manufacturing stages) and materials 

required to manufacture table saws that 

comply with the rule. The rule would 

also have a cost to consumers in the 

form of consumer surplus loss resulting 

from higher prices on table saws. Staff 

calculated the benefits and costs of the 

proposed rule on a per-product-in-use 

basis. Benefits and costs are presented 

in 2021 dollars. 

1. Baseline Risk and Conflicting Data

Beginning in 2010, the voluntary

standards governing table saws (at that 

time UL 987; currently UL 62841–3–1) 

have required table saws to be equipped 

with modular blade guard systems, 

riving knives, and anti-kickback 

devices. To quantify the hazards 

associated with blade-contact injuries 

and to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

voluntary standards, CPSC staff 

conducted the 2017 Special Study. Of 

the 26,501 blade-contact injury cases 

analyzed for the Special Study, staff 

concluded that 12.2 percent involved 

saws that were compliant with the 

voluntary standard, 19.6 percent 

involved table saws with ‘‘unknown’’ 

blade guard types, and the remainder of 

incidents involved non-compliant saws. 

The Special Study found that the 

relative risk of a blade-contact injury 

was 7.19 times greater for a noncompliant saw than a complaint saw. 

However, there are significant caveats 

to this finding. First, the Special Study 

is a snapshot analysis based on only one 

year of incidents. Second, there is a 

significant proportion of injuries 

associated with ‘‘unknown’’ blade guard 

types. Third, the study does not account 

for characteristics of the study group. 

For example, the study did not reveal if 

the consumers who purchased 

compliant saws were more risk-averse 

or safety-conscious. If this was the case, 

members of that group would be less 

likely to be involved in a table sawrelated injury regardless of the type of 

blade guard in use. Notably, as 

discussed in more detail in section IV of 

this preamble, the NEISS data trend 

indicates that the rate of table saw blade 

contact injuries has not declined in 

more than a decade after the 

introduction of the modular blade guard 

requirement. Given this data, CPSC 

assesses that the voluntary standards 

have not been effective in the long run 

at reducing blade contact injuries. 

2. Blade-Contact Injuries

The proposed rule is intended to

address table saw injuries resulting from 

blade contact by requiring table saws to 

be equipped with AIM technology. 

According to the 2017 Special Study, 

there were an estimated 26,501 blade 

contact injuries initially treated in U.S. 

hospital emergency departments in 

2017. The number of table saw injuries 

initially treated outside of hospital EDs 

is estimated with the CPSC’s Injury Cost 

Model (ICM), which uses empirical 

relationships between the 

characteristics of injuries (diagnosis and 

body part) and victims (age and sex) 

initially treated in hospital EDs and the 

characteristics of those initially treated 

in other settings.23 Based on the 2017 

annual estimate of 26,501 blade contact 

injuries initially treated in hospital EDs, 

as determined in the 2017 Special 

Study, the ICM projects an additional 

22,675 blade contact injuries treated in 

other treatment settings. 

Thus, there was an estimated annual 

total of about 49,176 medically treated 

blade-contact injuries. About 60.9 

percent of those injuries involved bench 

saws; 27.1 percent involved contractor 

saws; and 9.1 percent involved cabinet 

saws. About 3 percent involved table 

saws of unknown type. Staff estimates 

that approximately 21,504 injuries 

(about 43.7 percent) were treated in 

doctors’ offices or clinics, and 1,171 

injuries (about 2.4 percent) resulted in 

direct hospital admission, bypassing the 

ED. Overall, about 9.8 percent of the 

medically treated injuries resulted in 

hospitalization, either directly or 

following treatment in an ED. 

An estimated 90.1 percent of the 

injuries involved fingers, with almost all 

of the remainder involving the hand. 

About 9.1 percent of the medically 

treated injuries involved amputations; 

58.1 percent involved lacerations; and 

23.5 percent involved fractures. About 

33.4 percent of the amputations resulted 

in hospital admission, compared to 

about 5.9 percent of lacerations and 14.2 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74927 

24Rice, Dorothy P., MacKenzie, Ellen J., and 

Associates, 1989. Cost of injury in the United States: 

A report to Congress. San Francisco, CA: Institute 

for Heath & Aging, University of California and 

Injury Prevention Center, The Johns Hopkins 

University; Haddix, Anne C., Teutch, Steven M., 

Corso, Phaedra S., 2003. Prevention effectiveness: A 

guide to decision and economic evaluation (2nd 

ed.). New York: Oxford University Press; Cohen, 

Mark A., Miller, Ted R., 2003. ‘‘Willingness to 

award’’ nonmonetary damages and implied value of 

life from jury awards. International Journal of Law 

and Economics, 23 at 165–184; Neumann, Peter J., 

Sanders, Gillian D., Russell, Louise B., Siegel, 

Joanna E., Ganiats, Theodore G., 2016. Costeffectiveness in health and medicine: Second 

Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. 

25OMB, 2003. Circular A–4: Regulatory analysis. 

Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 

legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf; 

Gold, Marthe R., Siegel, Joanna E., Russell, Louise 

B., Einsteinin, Milton C., 1996. Cost-effectiveness in 

health and medicine. New York: Oxford University 

Press; Haddix, et al., supra note 24. 

percent of fractures. Only about 28.7 

percent of the amputations were 

projected to be treated in doctors’ 

offices, clinics, and other non-hospital 

settings, compared with about 42.0 

percent of lacerations and 49.4 percent 

of fractures. 

The blade-contact injury rate per 

100,000 saws is calculated by dividing 

the number of medically-treated injuries 

by the estimated number of table saws 

in use. Using the data from the 2017 

Special Study, there were 

approximately 559 bench saw-related 

injuries per 100,000 bench saws in use; 

951 contractor saw-related injuries per 

100,000 contractor saws in use; and 306 

cabinet saw-related injuries per 100,000 

cabinet saws in use. 

3. Injury Costs of Blade Contact Injuries 

The societal costs of blade-contact 

injuries are quantified using the ICM. 

The ICM’s components for injury costs 

include medical costs, work losses, and 

the intangible costs associated with lost 

quality of life or pain and suffering. 

Medical costs include three categories 

of expenditures: (1) medical and 

hospital costs associated with treating 

the injured victim during the initial 

recovery period and in the long run, 

including the costs associated with 

corrective surgery, the treatment of 

chronic injuries, and rehabilitation 

services; (2) ancillary costs, such as 

costs for prescriptions, medical 

equipment, and ambulance transport; 

and (3) costs of health insurance claims 

processing. Cost estimates for these 

expenditure categories were derived 

from a number of national and state 

databases, including the Medical 

Expenditure Panel Survey, the National 

Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost 

and Utilization Project (HCUP–NIS), the 

Nationwide Emergency Department 

Sample (NEDS), the National Nursing 

Home Survey (NNHS), MarketScan®

claims data, and a variety of other 

Federal, State, and private databases. 

Work loss estimates include: (1) the 

forgone earnings of the victim, 

including lost wage work and 

household work; (2) the forgone 

earnings of parents and visitors, 

including lost wage work and 

household work; (3) imputed long term 

work losses of the victim that would be 

associated with permanent impairment; 

and (4) employer productivity losses, 

such as the costs incurred when 

employers spend time rearranging 

schedules or training replacement 

workers. Estimates are based on 

information from HCUP–NIS, NEDS, 

Detailed Claims Information (a workers’ 

compensation database), the National 

Health Interview Survey, the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other 

sources. 

The intangible, or non-economic, 

costs of injury reflect the physical and 

emotional trauma of injury as well as 

the mental anguish of victims and 

caregivers. Intangible costs are difficult 

to quantify because they do not 

represent products or resources traded 

in the marketplace. Nevertheless, they 

typically represent the largest 

component of injury cost and must be 

accounted for in any benefit-cost 

analysis involving health outcomes.24

The ICM develops a monetary estimate 

of these intangible costs from jury 

awards for pain and suffering. Estimates 

for the ICM were derived from 

regression analysis of jury awards in 

nonfatal product liability cases 

involving consumer products compiled 

by Jury Verdicts Research, Inc. 

This regulatory analysis discounts 

future benefits and costs using a 3 

percent discount rate. The 3 percent rate 

is intended to represent what is 

sometimes called the ‘‘social rate of time 

preference,’’ which is consistent with 

the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value.25

Based on ICM estimates and utilizing 

the 3 percent discount rate, the present 

value of total injury costs associated 

with the estimated 49,176 medically 

treated table saw injuries amounted to 

$3.97 billion. This suggests injury costs 

of about $80,650 per injury (i.e., $3.97 

billion ÷ 49,176 injuries). This high 

estimate is largely driven by the costs 

associated with amputations. While 

amputations accounted for 

approximately 9.1 percent of injuries, 

they accounted for almost 55.3 percent 

of total estimated costs. 

The distribution of injury costs by 

medical treatment setting is provided in 

table 5. Overall, medical costs and work 

losses accounted for 31 percent of the 

total, while the non-economic losses 

associated with pain and suffering 

accounted for 69 percent. 

TABLE 5—ANNUAL SOCIETAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH TABLE SAW BLADE CONTACT INJURIES, BY MEDICAL TREATMENT

SETTING AND INJURY COST COMPONENT

[2021 dollars; 3% discount rate] 

Medical treatment setting 

Average cost per injury, by cost component 

Medical Work loss Pain and 

suffering Total 

Doctor/Clinic ..................................................................................................................... $705 $1,982 $21,970 $24,657 

Emergency Department (ED) .......................................................................................... 2,206 1,894 30,211 34,311 

Hospital, Admitted via ED ................................................................................................ 18,548 197,213 308,001 523,761 

Direct Hospital Admission ................................................................................................ 18,999 208,590 333,386 560,975 

Estimates of the present value of these 

societal costs from blade-contact 

injuries, per table saw in use, and by 

saw type, are presented in table 6. Row 

(a) shows aggregate annual societal 

costs, by type of saw. Annual societal 

costs per saw are presented in row (c) 

and are calculated by dividing the 

aggregate annual societal costs, row (a), 

by table saws in use, row (b). The 

present value of annual societal costs at 

a 3 percent discount rate are presented 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74928 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

26Chowdhury, Sadeq R., Paul, Caroleene, 2011. 

Survey of injuries involving stationary saws, table 

and bench saws, 2007–2008. Bethesda, MD: U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

27 Garland, Sarah, 2016. Table Saw blade contact 

injury analysis. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission. (November 2016). 

28TAB A of Staff’s Briefing Package. 

in row (e) and range from $3,503 per 

bench saw to $12,865 per cabinet saw. 

These present value figures represent 

the maximum benefits that could be 

derived from a rule addressing bladecontact injuries if such a rule prevented 100 percent of all such injuries. 

TABLE 6—PRESENT VALUE OF SOCIETAL COSTS OF INJURIES PER TABLE SAW IN USE, BY TABLE SAW TYPE

[Based on blade contact injuries in 2017] 

Table saw type 

Bench Contractor Cabinet 

(a) Aggregate Annual Societal Costs (Millions $) ................................................................................... $2,198. 29 $612. 49 $1,099. 81 

(b) Table Saws in Use (Millions) ............................................................................................................. 5. 35 1. 40 1. 45 

(c) Annual Societal Costs per Table Saw [(a) ÷ (b)] ............................................................................... $411 $437 $760 

(d) Expected Useful Product Life (years) ................................................................................................ 10 17 24 

(e) Present Value of Societal Costs, Over Expected Product Life (3 percent discount rate) ................ $3,503 $5,750 $12,865 

4. Effectiveness and Expected Benefits 

of the Proposed Rule 

The effectiveness of AIM technology 

in preventing blade-contact injuries is 

expected to be high. However, not all 

injuries would be prevented, because 

the AIM system activates after the hand 

or finger comes into contact with an 

operating blade. Moreover, it will not 

mitigate all severe blade-contact 

injuries. For example, it will not 

mitigate potentially severe blade contact 

injuries that occur: (1) when the saw is 

not running; (2) when the blade is 

operating but the AIM system has been 

deactivated; (3) when the operator’s 

hand is moving into the blade so 

quickly that contact with the blade 

cannot be reduced sufficiently to 

prevent serious injury; or (4) when the 

AIM technology leads to complacency 

or reductions in safety efforts on the 

part of users that result in injuries the 

AIM technology is unable to prevent, 

which may or may not involve blade 

contact. An example of the fourth 

category might be an operator’s decision 

to remove other safety equipment on the 

table saw, such as an anti-kickback 

pawl, which might increase the 

likelihood of an injury involving wood 

thrown back at the operator. 

While there is insufficient 

information to quantify the impact of 

these factors with precision, there is 

information to highlight their impact. 

The 2007–2008 table saw survey found 

that in 5.5 percent of table saw injuries, 

the motor was not running.26 The 2014– 

2015 NEISS special study found that 

about 2.4 percent of the blade contact 

injuries involved saw blades that were 

not in operation at the time of injury or 

had just been turned off.27 Additionally, 

the existing AIM technology cannot be 

used when cutting conductive materials, 

such as non-ferrous metals (e.g., 

aluminum) or wood that is wet enough 

to conduct sufficient electricity to 

activate the AIM system. Consequently, 

table saws with existing AIM systems 

have a bypass mode that temporarily 

deactivates the AIM system to prevent 

nuisance tripping. Although the 

SawStop saws automatically reset to 

safety mode whenever restarted, some 

consumers might deactivate the AIM 

system even when it is not necessary to 

do so. 

Given the factors discussed in this 

section, we assume that AIM technology 

is 90 percent effective in reducing the 

societal costs of blade contact injuries. 

Table 7 recalculates benefits with a 90 

percent effective rate to estimate the 

benefits from the proposed rule. 

TABLE 7—EXPECTED BENEFITS, PER TABLE SAW, ASSUMING 90% EFFECTIVENESS

Table saw type 

PV of societal costs, over 

expected product life 

(3 percent discount rate) 

Benefits at 90% 

effectiveness, 3 percent 

discount rate 

(a) (b) = a × 90% 

Bench ................................................................................................................... $3,503 $3,153 

Contractor ............................................................................................................ 5,750 5,175 

Cabinet ................................................................................................................. 12,865 11,579 

As discussed previously in this 

section of the preamble, there is 

inconsistent evidence whether table 

saws complying with the modular blade 

guard system requirement in UL 62841– 

3–1 are substantially less likely to cause 

severe injuries. If the voluntary standard 

is in fact effective in reducing the 

number or severity of blade-contact 

injuries, the proposed rule’s expected 

reduction in societal costs would be 

reduced, because some of the injuries 

that an AIM system would be expected 

to prevent would already have been 

prevented by adherence to the voluntary 

standard. For an analysis of expected 

benefits under an assumption that the 

voluntary standard is in fact effective, 

see staff’s revised preliminary regulatory 

analysis.28

5. Costs To Meet Performance 

Requirements 

Table saw manufacturers are likely to 

incur three primary types of costs to 

incorporate AIM technology into their 

table saws: 

Costs of AIM technology. 

Manufacturers would have to either 

design and develop their own AIM 

technology or license an AIM 

technology developed and owned by 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74929 

29 Grahan, J. 2010. Expert report of Dr. John D. 

Graham. (April 27). Submitted with PTI public 

comments (2012) CPSC–2011–0074–1106, available 

at: regulations.gov. 

30 IEc interview with Dr. Stephen Gass, Saw Stop, 

LLC, November 6, 2015. 

31 Gass, Stephen F., 2012. Comments and 

information responsive to ANPR for table saw blade 

contact injuries, by SawStop, LLC. (Mar. 16, 2012). 

Comment CPSC–2011–0074–1106, available at: 

regulations.gov. 

32OMB, 2003, supra note 25. 

33SawStop, LLC. 2009. Presentation to CPSC, 

December 8 & 9; Osorio v. One World Technologies, 

Inc., 659 F3d 81, 83 (1st Cir 2011). 

34PTI, 2012. Comment by Susan M. Young for the 

Power Tool Institute, Inc., on ‘‘U.S. Consumer 

Product Commission [Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074] 

Table saw blade contact injuries: Advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking,’’ (March 16, 2012). (Comment 

CPSC–2011–0074–1081, available at: 

regulations.gov). 

35PTI, 2016. Table saw facts at a glance. Accessed 

June 20, 2016. Available at: http://

powertoolinstitute.com/pti-pages/it-table-sawfacts.asp. 

36SawStop, March 2011, Information Package for 

Petition CP–03–02. As cited in CPSC (2011). Table 

Saw Blade Contact Injuries; Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. September 14. 

another party. As previously noted, 

there are currently at most three 

suppliers of AIM technology. The 

Commission considers the development 

of additional AIM technologies likely if 

the proposed rule is adopted, but 

additional competitive entry is not 

certain. While most manufacturers of 

table saws would likely continue 

production by licensing an AIM 

technology, some firms, especially 

smaller firms, would likely drop out of 

the market altogether, resulting in a loss 

of consumer surplus as well as 

increased prices due to lessened 

competition. 

Redesign and retooling costs. 

Incorporating AIM technology into 

existing models would require 

manufacturers to redesign each model 

and retool the facilities where the saws 

are manufactured. For example, table 

saw models not currently incorporating 

AIM technology likely would require 

redesign to provide room for blade 

retraction, to allow access for users to 

change the cartridge and blade, and to 

withstand the force of the AIM system 

being triggered. PTI estimates that, on 

average, the cost to redesign and retool 

existing table saws would range from $2 

million to $10 million per 

manufacturer.29 Dr. Gass, however, has 

said that SawStop’s tooling costs were 

approximately $200,000 for its first 

contractor/cabinet table saw, and 

approximately $700,000 for its first 

bench saw. He also emphasized some 

table saw models are minor variations 

on one another and share the same basic 

structure, which reduces costs of 

redesign and retooling.30 Furthermore, 

foreign manufacturers may produce 

saws for multiple U.S. firms; the costs 

of retooling might be spread across 

several of their customers if the designs 

are similar enough. 

Material and labor costs. The 

combination of adding a brake cartridge 

or other means of stopping or retracting 

the blade after contact with flesh, and 

redesigning the table saw to 

accommodate the additional electronic 

components and wiring, the required 

clearances, and the weight and 

dimensions of the AIM technology, 

would result in increased materials 

costs. For SawStop models in 2012, the 

additional cost associated with the AIM 

system was approximately $58.31 An 

estimate from another firm, also in 2012, 

suggested $74 (including cartridge, 

electronics, and mechanical parts). 

The structure of some bench saws 

may need to be strengthened to improve 

stability and withstand the shock of 

blade braking and/or retraction. This 

strengthening may increase the overall 

weight of some of the lightest saws, 

reducing their portability and utility. 

The commission seeks comments on 

the impact this proposed rule would 

have on existing firms. 

D. Manufacturing Cost Impact 

To estimate the per-unit 

manufacturing cost of requiring AIM 

technology for table saws, CPSC staff 

assume that the costs associated with 

the rule are fully pushed forward to 

consumers, and that the expected price 

increases are reflective of all costs of 

production and supply. However, these 

cost impacts do not include royalty fees, 

which are payments that manufacturers 

would have to make if they license the 

AIM technology from other firms rather 

than developing their own AIM systems. 

From a societal perspective, royalties 

represent a transfer payment from one 

party or sector to another. Because 

royalties essentially move money from 

one party to another, and are not 

payments for goods or services, they are 

not costs for purposes of the benefit-cost 

analysis.32 Nevertheless, the royalties 

will have distributional impacts on 

manufacturers and consumers that are 

discussed below. 

1. Manufacturing Costs 

In 2015, SawStop predicted that retail 

prices for bench saws would increase by 

no more than $150 per unit as result of 

the rule.33 Inflated to 2021 dollars, this 

results in an estimated increase of $193. 

In the absence of more specific 

information about manufacturing costs, 

CPSC staff used this figure as the basis 

for the low-end estimate of 

manufacturing cost increases for bench 

saws. 

For contractor and cabinet saws, the 

low-end expected cost impacts were 

based on discussions with other 

industry members. One manufacturer 

estimated that the retail price of a single 

table saw model that they produce 

would increase by about 30 percent as 

a result of the rule, including the cost 

of royalties. Excluding royalties, and 

inflated to 2021 dollars, this estimate 

suggests a cost increase associated with 

redesign, retooling, and materials of 

about $321. For this analysis, we 

assume that this $321 low-end cost 

increase can be applied to all contractor 

and cabinet saws. 

For bench saws, the high-end cost 

increase is based on information 

provided by PTI, whose members 

produce primarily bench saws. In 2012, 

PTI estimated that the increase would 

be $100 to $800 per saw, excluding 

royalties.34 Inflated to 2021 dollars, the 

midpoint of this range is $651. 

For contractor and cabinet saw 

models, we apply the high end of the 

range estimated by PTI and other 

manufacturers. One table saw 

manufacturer provided an estimate 

ranging from $500 to $800 for ‘‘larger 

saws,’’ excluding royalties. Another 

manufacturer estimated that the retail 

price of saws would increase by 20 

percent, excluding the cost of royalties. 

IEc, 2016b. Applying this percentage to 

the company’s cabinet saw models 

results in added costs of about $260 to 

$800. CPSC assumes the high-end 

incremental cost increase is $1,002, 

which is the upper bound of each range 

suggested by PTI and these two 

manufacturers, inflated to 2021 dollars. 

These costs are for the first years 

following adoption of the proposed 

safety rule. In the longer term, after 

about 5 years, the incremental cost 

should decrease as AIM technology is 

better developed and deployed. 

2. Replacement Parts Costs 

In addition to the manufacturing costs 

just described, there will also be the 

added costs of replacement parts related 

to the AIM system. For purposes of this 

analysis, we base the cost of 

replacement parts on the SawStop 

system, which requires replacement of 

the brake cartridge and blade after 

activation of the system. Replacement 

part prices are estimated to include $95 

for a replacement brake cartridge, and 

$30 to $90 for a replacement blade.35

Based on sales of replacement brake 

cartridges, SawStop estimates that the 

AIM system may activate about once 

every 9 years of use.36 At a replacement 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74930 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

rate of once every 9 years (and assuming 

$95 per replacement blade), this results 

in an annual per-unit replacement part 

cost of approximately $17. However, 

because blades deteriorate and require 

periodic replacement even in the 

absence of an AIM activation, CPSC 

assumes that the need for replacement 

blades due to AIM activation costs an 

average of about $14 annually. The 

present value of this expected annual 

cost of $14 over the life of a typical table 

saw, and discounted at a rate of 3 

percent, would amount to about $118 

for bench saws (with a 10-year expected 

product life), $183 for contractor saws 

(with an estimated 17-year product life), 

and $235 for cabinet saws (with an 

expected 24-year product life). 

The SawStop data, however, may 

overstate the costs of replacement parts. 

For instance, the AIM-equipped Bosch 

REAXX bench saw, which has since 

been withdrawn from the U.S. market, 

utilized a $100 cartridge that was usable 

for two activations. Because the blade 

was not destroyed by the activation, the 

Bosch system had lower replacement 

part costs. 

The direct manufacturing and 

replacement costs are presented in table 

8 and rely on the low- and high-end 

direct manufacturing costs and the 

SawStop replacement costs just 

described. 

TABLE 8—DIRECT MANUFACTURING AND REPLACEMENT COSTS

Table saw type 

Direct manufacturing costs 

Replacement 

part cost 

Total direct + replacement 

costs 

Low-end 

estimates 

High-end 

estimates Low-end 

estimates 

High-end 

estimates 

Bench ................................................................................................... $193 $651 $118 $311 $769 

Contractor ............................................................................................ 321 1,002 183 504 1,185

Cabinet ................................................................................................. 321 1,002 235 556 1,237

E. Lost Consumer Surplus

The increased retail prices of table

saws, as compliance costs are passed on 

to consumers, would result in a 

reduction in table saw sales. Consumers 

who decide not to purchase table saws 

because of the higher prices would 

experience a loss in consumer surplus. 

The assumptions used by Commission 

staff to estimate the lost consumer 

surplus are explained in TAB A of 

staff’s briefing package. Applying those 

assumptions, table 9 shows the expected 

reduction in annual sales and the 

expected lost consumer surplus as a 

result of adopting the proposed rule. 

Reduced sales could range from about 

110,800 table saws under the low-end 

cost estimates (column a), to about 

329,900 under the high-end cost 

estimates (column d), representing a 

sales reduction of about 17 percent to 50 

percent, respectively. The annual loss in 

consumer surplus ranges from about 

$13.9 million under the low-end 

estimates (column c), to about $120 

million under the high-end estimates 

(column f). 

TABLE 9—POST-REGULATORY ANNUAL TABLE SAW SALES, SALES REDUCTION, AND LOST CONSUMER SURPLUS

Low-end cost estimate High-end cost estimate 

(a) 

Expected 

sales 

reduction 

(b) 

Expected 

post-regulatory 

sales 

(c) 

Aggregate lost 

consumer 

surplus 

(millions $) 

(d) 

Expected 

sales 

reduction 

(e) 

Expected 

post-regulatory 

sales 

(f) 

Aggregate 

lost 

consumer 

surplus 

(millions $) 

Bench ................................................................................... 97,917 419,083 $11.02 297,231 219,769 $101.50 

Contractor ............................................................................. 9,098 69,902 1.91 23,885 55,115 13.14

Cabinet ................................................................................. 3,813 51,187 1.00 8,758 46,242 5.28

Total .............................................................................. 110,827 540,173 13.92 329,874 321,126 119.92

Table 10 presents the total costs per 

table saw, including the direct 

manufacturing costs, replacement part 

costs, and lost consumer surplus. The 

direct manufacturing and replacement 

part cost estimates, per table saw, are 

from table 8. The lost consumer surplus, 

per table saw, is calculated as the 

aggregate lost consumer surplus divided 

by the post-regulatory estimate of sales. 

Total per-unit costs range from roughly 

$388 to $1,210 per bench saw, from 

$531 to $1,376 per contractor saw, and 

from about $576 to $1,276 per cabinet 

saw. 

TABLE 10—TOTAL COSTS PER SAW

Table saw type 

Low-end 

cost estimate 

High-end 

cost estimate 

Direct + 

replacement 

Lost 

consumer 

surplus 

Total Direct + 

replacement 

Lost 

consumer 

surplus 

Total 

(a) (b) (c) = (a) + (b) (d) (e) (f) = (d) + (e)

Bench ................................................................................... $311 $26 $338 $749 $462 $1,210

Contractor ............................................................................. 504 27 531 1,138 238 1,376

Cabinet ................................................................................. 556 20 576 1,161 114 1,276


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74931 

37TAB A to Staff’s Briefing Package. 

38Comment by Susan M. Young for the Power 

Tool Institute, Inc., on U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Table saw blade contact 

injuries: Notice of proposed rulemaking, (July 26, 

2017), available at: regulations.gov. 

The annual aggregate costs of the rule 

are estimated in columns (c) and (f) of 

table 11, and range from about $208 

million, based on the low-end cost 

estimates, to about $400 million, based 

on the high-end cost estimates. Bench 

saws account for about 68 percent of the 

total under the low-end estimates, and 

about 66 percent of the total under the 

high-end estimates. 

TABLE 11—ANNUAL POST-REGULATORY SALES, PER-UNIT COST ESTIMATES, AND AGGREGATE ANNUAL COSTS OF THE

PROPOSED RULE, BY COST LEVEL AND TABLE SAW TYPE

Table saw type 

Low-end cost estimates High-end cost estimates 

(a) 

Annual 

post-regulatory 

table saw 

sales 

(b) 

Per unit 

rule cost 

(c) 

Aggregate 

costs 

(millions $) 

(d) 

Annual postregulatory table 

saw sales surplus) 

(e) 

Per unit rule cost 

(f) 

Aggregate costs 

(millions $) 

(a × b) (d × e) 

Bench .......................... 419,083 .................... $338 ......................... $141.55 .................... 219,769 .................... $1,210 ...................... $266.01 

Contractor ................... 69,902 ...................... 531 ........................... 37.13 ........................ 55,115 ...................... 1,376 ........................ 75.84 

Cabinet ....................... 51,187 ...................... 576 ........................... 29.47 ........................ 46,242 ...................... 1,276 ........................ 58.98 

Total ..................... 540,173 .................... .................................. 208.15 ...................... 321,126 .................... .................................. 400.83 

F. Relationship Between Benefits and 

Costs 

Section 9(f)(3)(E) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2058(f)(3)(E), provides that before 

adopting a final rule under CPSA 

sections 7 and 9, the Commission must 

find ‘‘that the benefits expected from the 

rule bear a reasonable relationship to its 

costs.’’ Although this SNPR does not 

establish a final rule, we nevertheless 

address that issue here and 

preliminarily conclude that the 

expected benefits of the proposed rule 

comfortably exceed its expected costs. 

The expected benefits and costs of the 

proposed rule by table saw type are 

presented in table 12. The net benefit 

estimates suggest that the per-unit 

benefits exceed costs by a ratio of more 

than 3.5 to 1 using a 3 percent discount 

rate. Using a 3 percent discount rate, the 

estimated net benefits range from about 

$503 million to $1,326 million for bench 

saws, $241 million to $365 million for 

contractor saws, and $536 million to 

$629 million for cabinet saws. 

TABLE 12—ESTIMATED NET BENEFITS

Table saw type Benefits 

per saw 

Cost per saw 

(low est—top, 

hi est.—bottom) 

Net benefit 

per saw 

Est. 

annual sales 

Aggregate net 

benefits 

(millions, $) 

(a) (b) (c) = (a)¥(b) (d) (e) = (c) × (d) 

Bench .......................................................................................................... $3,503 $338 

1,210 

$3,165 

2,293 

419,083 $1,327 

504 

Contractor .................................................................................................... 5,750 531 

1,376 

5,218 

4,374 

69,902 365 

241 

Cabinet ........................................................................................................ 12,865 576 

1,276 

12,289 

11,590 

51,187 629 

536 

This general relationship is not 

altered with variations in some of the 

key parameters of the analysis, 

including variations in the expected 

product life of table saws, table saw 

sales, injury rates, and significant 

variations in the estimated costs of 

injuries. Furthermore, even if the 

Commission were to assume that the 

voluntary standards have been effective 

in reducing the number and severity of 

injuries, based on the findings from the 

2017 Special Study, benefits would not 

be strongly negative and could be 

positive. The Regulatory Analysis Memo 

contains a discussion of costs and 

benefits under this assumption.37

G. Sensitivity Analysis 

The results of the regulatory analysis 

demonstrate that the benefits of AIM 

technology substantially exceed costs 

under most plausible scenarios. This 

sensitivity analysis varies several of the 

key parameters to show the impact on 

per-unit net benefits. 

1. Lower AIM Effectiveness 

Net benefits decline modestly if it is 

assumed that AIM technology is only 70 

percent effective at mitigating the 

societal costs of blade-contact injuries, 

rather than 90 percent. Net benefits 

under this assumption are $272.92 per 

bench saw, $145.98 per contractor saw, 

and $357.45 per cabinet saw. Benefits 

remain substantially greater than costs. 

2. Higher Replacement Parts Costs 

PTI’s comments in response to the 

2017 NPR stated that CPSC staff 

substantially underestimated 

replacement part costs (i.e., replacement 

of blade and brake cartridge following 

activation of an AIM system), and 

suggested that such costs were more 

likely to amount to about $36 annually, 

as opposed to the $11 per year estimated 

in the NPR.38 The PTI estimates would 

increase the cost per table saw, and 

would also result in the costs of the 

proposed rule exceeding the benefits. 

Specifically, net benefits could result in 

amounts as low as ¥$270.24 per bench 

saw, ¥$70.26 per contractor saw, and 

¥$82.86 per cabinet saw. Nevertheless, 

given that estimated gross benefits per 

saw range from approximately $3,500 to 

nearly $13,000, even the higher 

replacement parts costs suggested by 

PTI—which are not consistent with 

CPSC staff’s analysis—result in total 

costs that bear a reasonable relationship 

to total benefits. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74932 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

3. Variations in the Expected Product

Life of Bench Saws

PTI commented in response to the 

2017 NPR that staff’s estimate that the 

expected product life of bench saws was 

10 years was an overestimate; PTI stated 

that bench saws’ actual expected 

product life was 7.5 years. Id. However, 

a shorter product life reduces the 

estimated number of bench saws in use 

while the number and cost of injuries 

remain the same, thereby increasing the 

per-unit annual benefit of reduced 

social costs. The combined effect is a 

small increase in per-saw benefits and 

net benefits. 

H. Regulatory Alternatives

The Commission considered several

alternatives to the proposed rule. These 

alternatives would mitigate the 

proposed rule’s costs and potential 

disruptions in the marketplace. 

However, these alternatives would also 

reduce the expected benefits of the 

proposed rule. 

1. Take No Regulatory Action

The Commission could end the

regulatory proceeding for table saws if it 

concludes that a mandatory rule is no 

longer needed to address an 

unreasonable risk. We cannot estimate 

the benefits and costs that would be 

associated with this alternative, because 

the estimates would be affected by 

factors such as the extent to which 

manufacturers would introduce new 

AIM-equipped table saws in the absence 

of a requirement that they do so, the 

prices of any such table saws, and the 

rate at which consumers would choose 

to purchase such table saws. However, 

because the rate at which AIM 

technology would be adopted in the 

absence of a mandatory rule would 

probably be substantially lower than the 

rate under a mandatory rule, both the 

benefits and the costs of this alternative 

would be much lower than estimated for 

the proposed rule. 

2. Later Effective Dates

The proposed rule includes an

effective date of 36 months after the 

final rule is published in the Federal 

Register. This is a lengthy period of 

time, particularly given Congress’s 

instruction that consumer product 

safety rules adopted under sections 7 

and 9 of the CPSA ordinarily should 

take effect within 30 to 180 days. 15 

U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). Nevertheless, an 

effective date even later than 36 months 

could help reduce the impact of the rule 

on manufacturers by allowing them 

additional time to spread the costs of 

the redesign, and would also allow 

additional time for new entrants into the 

market. A later effective date might 

especially benefit manufacturers of 

bench saws because of the added 

technical difficulties in engineering 

small bench saws to incorporate AIM 

technology. 

Although later effective dates could 

mitigate the impact of the proposed rule 

for some manufacturers, it could also 

delay a market-wide distribution of 

table saws with AIM technology. Given 

the net benefits per unit expected from 

incorporating AIM technology, delaying 

the effective date of the proposed rule 

would also delay the expected benefits 

of the rule. 

3. Exempt Contractor and Cabinet Saws

From a Product Safety Rule

The Commission could exempt 

cabinet and contractor saws on the 

grounds that, while widely purchased 

and used by consumers, they are 

generally intended for professional, 

commercial, or industrial users. 

Exempting cabinet and contractor saws 

could substantially reduce the adverse 

impact of the rule on small 

manufacturers because most small 

manufacturers market contractor and 

cabinet saws. Under this alternative, 

however, the benefits and costs would 

be limited to those associated with 

bench saws, which account for 

approximately 60.9 percent of medically 

treated blade-contact injuries. Thus, 

more than a third of medically treated 

blade-contact injuries would remain 

unaddressed under this alternative. 

4. Limiting Applicability of Performance

Requirements to Some, But Not All,

Table Saws

Rather than requiring all table saws of 

each manufacturer to meet the 

requirements of the proposed standard, 

the Commission could require that only 

a subset of table saws do so. For 

example, if a firm produces bench saws 

and contractor saws, the Commission 

might require the firm to produce at 

least one bench saw model and one 

contractor saw model that meet the 

requirements of the standard. However, 

this option would only address a 

portion of total injuries. In addition, a 

rule of this sort might be somewhat 

more difficult to enforce than a 

requirement that all table saws contain 

the AIM technology. 

5. Information and Education Campaign

The Commission could conduct an

information and education campaign 

informing consumers about blade 

contact hazards and blade contact 

injuries, and the benefits of AIM 

technology. The Commission could also 

strongly encourage consumers to always 

use the passive safety devices required 

under the voluntary standard, especially 

if they choose not to purchase a table 

saw with the AIM technology. This 

alternative could be implemented on its 

own, in the absence of other regulatory 

options, or it could be implemented in 

combination with any of the alternative 

options. 

However, the effectiveness of 

warnings and instructions is limited, 

because they depend on consumers not 

only receiving and understanding the 

message, but also being persuaded to 

heed the message. Although such a 

campaign could help inform consumers, 

the Commission preliminarily 

concludes based on the severity of 

injuries and recurring hazard patterns of 

blade-contact injuries, coupled with the 

high societal costs of these injuries, that 

a performance requirement is necessary 

to reduce the unreasonable risk of bladecontact injuries. 

XI. Updated Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis

This section provides an analysis of 

the impact the proposed rule would 

have on small businesses. Whenever an 

agency is required to publish a proposed 

rule, section 603 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that the 

agency prepare an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) that describes 

the impact that the rule would have on 

small businesses and other entities. 5 

U.S.C. 603. An IRFA is not required if 

the head of an agency certifies that the 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605. 

The IRFA must contain: 

(1) a description of why action by the

agency is being considered; 

(2) a succinct statement of the

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

(3) a description of and, where

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

(4) a description of the projected

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities which will 

be subject to the requirement and the 

type of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

(5) identification to the extent

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule. 

An IRFA must also contain a 

description of any significant 

alternatives that would accomplish the 

stated objectives of the applicable 

statutes and that would minimize any 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74933 

39The regulations governing the content, form, 

and availability of the certificates of compliance are 

codified at 16 CFR 1110. 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. 

According to the IRFA, alternatives 

could include: (1) differing compliance 

or reporting requirements that take into 

account the resources available to small 

businesses; (2) clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

for small entities; (3) use of performance 

rather than design standards; and (4) an 

exemption from coverage of the rule, or 

any part of the rule thereof, for small 

entities. The alternatives the 

Commission considered are discussed 

in section X of this preamble. 

The IRFA prepared by CPSA staff is 

contained in TAB B of staff’s briefing 

package, and is summarized below. 

A. Reason for Agency Action 

The proposed rule for table saws 

would reduce an unreasonable risk of 

injury associated with blade-contact 

injuries on table saws. CPSC staff 

estimate that there were an average of 

approximately 32,000 emergency 

department-treated blade-contact 

injuries annually from 2004 to 2020. 

AIM technology has been shown to 

significantly mitigate the severity of 

injuries caused by a victim’s finger, 

hand, or other body part contacting the 

blade while the table saw is in 

operation. Accordingly, the proposed 

rule would establish a mandatory 

performance requirement to address the 

risk of injuries associated with bladecontact injuries on table saws. 

B. Objective of and Legal Basis for the 

Proposed Rule 

The objective of the proposed rule is 

to reduce the risk of serious injuries 

resulting from blade contact on table 

saws. The Commission published an 

ANPR in October 2011, which initiated 

this proceeding to evaluate regulatory 

options and potentially develop a 

mandatory standard to address the risks 

of blade-contact injuries associated with 

the use of table saws, and the 

Commission published an NPR in 2017. 

The proposed rule would be 

promulgated under the authority of the 

CPSA. 

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rule Will Apply 

The proposed rule would apply to 

manufacturers, importers, and private 

labelers of table saws that are sold in the 

United States. As of March 2023, CPSC 

is aware of 23 firms that supply table 

saws to the U.S. market. Of these 23 

firms, seven are small according to 

criteria established by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 

According to the SBA criteria, a table 

saw manufacturer is considered small if 

it has fewer than 500 employees, and a 

table saw importer is considered small 

if it has fewer than 100 employees. 

Private labelers of table saws are 

considered small if their annual revenue 

does not exceed $41.5 million in the 

case of home centers, $35 million in the 

case of department stores, and $8 

million in the case of hardware stores. 

Although the design and engineering 

of table saws may occur in the United 

States, most U.S. based suppliers 

contract the production of table saws to 

foreign manufacturers, generally in 

Taiwan or China. Shopsmith, the 

manufacturer of a multipurpose 

machine that includes a table saw, is the 

only small business believed to 

manufacture its product in the United 

States. 

D. Compliance, Reporting, and Record 

Keeping Requirements of the Proposed 

Rule 

The proposed rule would require that 

all table saws incorporate an AIM 

technology that will reduce the risk of 

severe injury if the finger, hand, or other 

body part comes into contact with the 

blade while the saw is in operation. In 

particular, the rulemaking would 

require that a table saw cut no deeper 

than 3.5 mm into a test probe that 

approaches a spinning saw blade at a 

rate of 1 m/s before contacting the blade. 

The proposed rule sets out a 

performance requirement rather than a 

design standard; it does not specify the 

manner in which the table saw must 

meet this safety requirement. If a final 

rule is issued, manufacturers must 

certify pursuant to section 14 of the 

CPSA that the product conforms to the 

standard, based on either a test of each 

product or any reasonable method to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of the standard. For 

products that manufacturers certify, 

manufacturers would issue a general 

certificate of conformity (GCC). 

Section 14 of the CPSA sets forth the 

requirements for GCCs. Among other 

requirements, each certificate must 

identify the manufacturer or private 

labeler issuing the certificate and any 

third party conformity assessment body 

on whose testing the certificate 

depends, the place of manufacture, the 

date and place where the product was 

tested, each party’s name, full mailing 

address, telephone number, and contact 

information for the individual 

responsible for maintaining records of 

test results. The certificate must be in 

English. Certificates must be furnished 

to each distributor or retailer of the 

product and to the CPSC, if requested.39

1. Costs of Proposed Rule That Would 

Be Incurred by Small Manufacturers 

To comply with the proposed rule, 

table saw manufacturers would need to 

license or develop an AIM technology. 

To license a technology, manufacturers 

typically pay a royalty or license fee to 

the owner of the patents on the 

technology. At this time CPSC is not 

able to estimate the royalty cost for 

licensing an AIM technology. 

If a manufacturer wished to avoid 

fees, the manufacturer would have the 

challenge of developing its own AIM 

technology that does not infringe on an 

existing patent. At a minimum, such an 

effort would likely cost at least several 

hundred thousand dollars and perhaps 

several million dollars, based on the 

estimated costs of developing the 

existing technologies. 

According to several manufacturers, 

incorporating AIM technology would 

require a redesign of each table saw 

model. Estimates of the redesign and 

retooling costs ranged from about 

$100,000 to $700,000 per model. The 

redesign and retooling process would be 

expected to take 1 to 3 years depending 

on the number and severity of problems 

encountered in the process. The 

redesign and retooling costs for 

subsequent models could be less than 

the costs associated with the first model. 

In addition to the redesign and 

retooling costs, there would be costs for 

the additional components needed to 

incorporate an AIM technology. 

Depending upon the specific system, 

additional parts may include a brake 

cartridge; cables, parts, or brackets to 

secure the brake cartridge; electrodes 

and assemblies; and a power supply or 

motor control. CPSC estimates that these 

additional components would increase 

the manufacturing cost of a table saw by 

between $58 and $74. 

2. Impacts on Small Businesses 

Most small manufacturers are 

expected to license an AIM technology 

instead of developing their own 

technology. The costs of developing 

their own AIM technology would likely 

be too high for most small 

manufacturers, especially given the 

challenge of developing a technology 

that did not infringe upon an existing 

patent. However, there is no certainty 

that small manufacturers would be able 

to negotiate acceptable licensing 

agreements with TTS or another patent 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74934 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

40TAB B of Staff’s Briefing Package. 

holder. If small manufacturers are 

unable to negotiate acceptable licensing 

agreements for AIM technology, it is 

likely they would exit the U.S. table saw 

market. 

If a small table saw manufacturer is 

able to license AIM technology, it would 

have to determine whether each table 

saw model would remain profitable 

after redesigning it with AIM 

technology. Further, small table saw 

manufacturers that are able to license 

the AIM technology from TTS or 

another table saw manufacturer would 

pay royalties to a competitor. This could 

reduce their competitiveness in the 

table saw market. 

Most small manufacturers of table 

saws also supply other types of 

woodworking or metal working 

equipment. Information provided by 

firms suggests that U.S. sales of table 

saws account for a small percentage of 

the total revenue of most small firms. 

One manufacturer suggested that U.S. 

table saw sales accounted for about 1 

percent of the firm’s total revenue. Two 

other firms estimated that U.S. table saw 

sales accounted for between 5 and 8 

percent of their total revenue. IEc, 

2016a. Actions that impact a firm’s 

revenue by more than 1 percent are 

potentially significant. Given that small 

table saw manufacturers have expressed 

they may drop one or more table saw 

models or leave the market entirely if 

the proposed rule is adopted, the 

proposed rule could have a significant 

impact on small manufacturers. 

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) has established 

standards that cover woodworking 

equipment used in workplace settings, 

rather than by consumers. These 

standards are codified at 29 CFR 1910. 

Generally, these requirements cover 

workplace safety and the use of safety 

devices such as blade guards and hoods. 

Currently, OSHA standards do not 

mandate performance requirements that 

would use AIM technology on table 

saws that are used by consumers. 

Accordingly, the Commission has not 

identified any Federal rules that 

duplicate or conflict with the proposed 

rule. 

F. Alternatives Considered To Reduce 

the Burden on Small Entities 

Under section 603(c) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis must ‘‘contain a 

description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule which 

accomplish the stated objectives of the 

applicable statutes and which minimize 

any significant impact of the proposed 

rule on small entities.’’ CPSC examined 

several alternatives to the proposed rule 

that could reduce the impact on small 

entities. These alternatives are 

discussed in section X of this preamble. 

G. Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) in Response to 

2017 NPR 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604, a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis contained 

in a final rule must include the agency’s 

response to any comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA 

in response to a proposed rule, and a 

detailed statement of any change made 

to the proposed rule as a response to the 

comments. Although there is no such 

requirement for an IRFA, staff’s separate 

regulatory flexibility analysis 

memorandum 40 includes a summary of 

the significant issues raised in the Chief 

Counsel’s comments on the 2017 NPR. 

None of the comments by SBAA 

resulted in CPSC staff recommending 

changes to the proposed rule. 

XII. Environmental Considerations 

Generally, the Commission’s 

regulations are considered to have little 

or no potential for affecting the human 

environment, and environmental 

assessments and impact statements are 

not usually required. See 16 CFR 

1021.5(a). The final rule is not expected 

to have an adverse impact on the 

environment and is considered to fall 

within the ‘‘categorical exclusion’’ for 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 16 CFR 1021.5(c). 

XIII. Preemption 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (February 5, 1996), the CPSC 

states the preemptive effect of the 

proposed rule, as follows: 

The regulation for addressing bladecontact injuries on table saws is 

proposed under authority of the CPSA. 

15 U.S.C. 2051–2089. Section 26 of the 

CPSA provides that: 

whenever a consumer product safety 

standard under this Act is in effect and 

applies to a risk of injury associated with a 

consumer product, no State or political 

subdivision of a State shall have any 

authority either to establish or to continue in 

effect any provision of a safety standard or 

regulation which prescribes any 

requirements as to the performance, 

composition, contents, design, finish, 

construction, packaging or labeling of such 

product which are designed to deal with the 

same risk of injury associated with such 

consumer product, unless such requirements 

are identical to the requirements of the 

Federal Standard. 

15 U.S.C. 2075(a). Thus, this proposed 

rule would preempt non-identical state 

or local requirements for table saws that 

are designed to protect against the same 

risk of injury, i.e., injuries associated 

with blade contact. 

Upon application to the Commission, 

a state or local standard may be 

excepted from this preemptive effect if 

the state or local standard: (1) provides 

a higher degree of protection from the 

risk of injury or illness than the CPSA 

standard, and (2) does not unduly 

burden interstate commerce. In 

addition, the Federal Government, or a 

state or local government, may establish 

or continue in effect a non-identical 

requirement for its own use that is 

designed to protect against the same risk 

of injury as the CPSC standard if the 

Federal, State, or local requirement 

provides a higher degree of protection 

than the CPSA requirement. 15 U.S.C. 

2075(b). 

XIV. Certification 

Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires 

that products subject to a consumer 

product safety rule under the CPSA, or 

to a similar rule, ban, standard or 

regulation under any other act enforced 

by the Commission, must be certified as 

complying with all applicable CPSCenforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(a). A final rule addressing bladecontact injuries on table saws would 

subject table saws to this certification 

requirement. 

XV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). 44 U.S.C. 

3501–3520. We describe the provisions 

in this section of the document with an 

estimate of the annual reporting burden. 

Our estimate includes the time for 

gathering certificate data and creating 

General Certificates of Conformity 

(GCC), keeping and maintaining records 

associated with the GCCs, and 

disclosure of GCCs to third parties. 

CPSC particularly invites comments 

on: (1) whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

the CPSC’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74935 

collected; (4) ways to reduce the burden 

of the collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, when 

appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology; and (5) 

estimated burden hours associated with 

label modification, including any 

alternative estimates. 

Title: Safety Standard Addressing 

Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws. 

Description: The proposed rule would 

require table saws, when powered on, to 

limit the depth of cut to 3.5 millimeters 

when a test probe, acting as a surrogate 

for a human body part, contacts the 

spinning blade at an approach rate of 1 

meter per second. 

Description of Respondents: Persons 

who manufacture or import table saws. 

Staff estimates the burden of this 

collection of information as follows in 

table 13: 

TABLE 13—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

Burden type Number of 

respondents 

Frequency 

of response 

Total annual 

responses 

Minutes 

per response 

Total 

burden hours Annual cost 

GCC Creation ............................................................................ 23 7 161 5 13.42 $921.28 

Recordkeeping .......................................................................... 23 7 161 1.25 3.35 105.36 

Third Party Disclosure ............................................................... 23 7 161 15 40.25 1,265.86 

Total Burden ...................................................................... 69 ........................ 483 ........................ 57.02 2,292.50 

The proposed rule would require that 

manufacturers certify that their products 

conform to the rule and issue a GCC. As 

of March 2023, CPSC is aware of 23 

firms that supply table saws to the U.S. 

market. Accordingly, we estimate there 

are 23 respondents that will respond to 

the collection annually. On average, 

each respondent may gather certificate 

data and create 7 certificates for 

complying table saws in the market. The 

time required to issue a GCC is 

conservatively estimated as about 5 

minutes (although the actual time 

required is often substantially less). 

Therefore, the estimated burden 

associated with issuance of GCCs is 

13.42 hours (161 responses × 5 minutes 

per response = 805 minutes or 13.42 

hours). Staff estimates the hourly 

compensation for the time required to 

issue GCCs is $68.65 (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation,’’ March 2023, 

table 4, Private industry management, 

professional and related occupations: 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

archives/ecec_06162023.pdf). Therefore, 

the estimated annual cost to industry 

associated with issuance of a GCC is 

$921.28 ($68.65 per hour × 13.42 hours 

= $921.283). 

For purposes of this burden analysis, 

we assume that the records supporting 

GCC creation, including testing records, 

would be maintained for a five-year 

period. Staff estimates burden of 1.25 

minutes per year in routine 

recordkeeping. This adds up to 

approximately 3.35 hours (161 

responses × 1.25 minutes per response 

= 201.25 minutes or 3.35 hours). Staff 

estimates the hourly compensation for 

the time required to maintain records is 

$31.45 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

‘‘Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation,’’ March 2023, table 4, 

Private industry sales and office 

occupations: https://www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/archives/ecec_

06162023.pdf). Therefore, the estimated 

annual burden cost associated with 

recordkeeping of GCCs is $105.36 

($31.45 per hour × 3.35 hours = 

$105.3575). 

The rule would also require that GCCs 

be disclosed to third party retailers and 

distributors. Staff estimates another 161 

third party disclosure responses, each 

one of which requires 15 minutes per 

year. This adds up to 2,415 minutes 

(161 responses × 15 minutes per 

response = 2,415 minutes) or 40.25 

hours. Staff uses an hourly 

compensation for the time required to 

disclose certificates to third parties of 

$31.45 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

‘‘Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation,’’ March 2023, table 4, 

Private industry sales and office 

occupations: https://www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/archives/ecec_

06162023.pdf). Therefore, the estimated 

annual burden cost associated with 

third party disclosure of GCCs is 

$1,265.86 ($31.45 per hour × 40.25 

hours = $1,265.8625). 

Based on this analysis, CPSC 

estimates the annual PRA burden 

associated with the rule at 57.02 hours 

(13.42 hours + 3.35 hours + 40.25 hours) 

with a total burden cost of $2,292.50 

($921.28 + $105.36 + $1,265.86). There 

are no operating, maintenance, or 

capital costs associated with the 

collection. 

As required under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), CPSC has submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this proposed rule to the OMB for 

review. Interested persons are requested 

to submit comments regarding 

information collection by December 1, 

2023, to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB as described 

under the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

XVI. Effective Date 

Section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA provides 

that a rule issued under sections 7 and 

9, ‘‘including its effective date,’’ must be 

‘‘reasonably necessary to eliminate or 

reduce an unreasonable risk injury 

associated with such product.’’ 15 

U.S.C. 2058(f)(3). Section 9(g)(1) 

addresses effective dates in greater 

detail and requires that the effective 

date shall not exceed 180 days from the 

date the rule is promulgated, ‘‘unless 

the Commission finds, for good cause 

shown, that a later effective date is in 

the public interest and publishes its 

reasons for such finding.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

2058(g)(1). Similarly, the effective date 

must not be less than 30 days after 

promulgation ‘‘unless the Commission 

for good cause shown determines that 

an earlier effective date is in the public 

interest.’’ 

The Commission here proposes to 

find good cause in the public interest to 

extend the effective date of this 

rulemaking beyond the statutory range 

of 30 to 180 days, and to make the 

rulemaking effective 36 months from the 

date of publication of the final rule. The 

rule would apply to all table saws 

manufactured after the effective date. 15 

U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). This effective date is 

being proposed in light of the unusual 

market conditions presented here, 

where the proposed safety rule requires 

use of advanced technologies that are 

capable of being supplied competitively, 

but currently are dominated by a single 

supplier. The proposed effective date is 

intended to allow time for development 

of both existing and new AIM 

technologies and establishment of 

commercial arrangements for licensing 

those technologies. It thereby addresses 

the concerns about potential 

unavailability of AIM solutions at 

affordable cost that some commenters 

raised in response to the NPR. In 

addition, this extended effective date 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74936 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

would allow manufacturers to spread 

over a 36-month period the costs of 

modifying the design of their table saws 

to incorporate AIM technology, and 

retooling their factories to produce table 

saws with the new technology. Finally, 

it would allow additional time for new 

entrants into the U.S. table saw market. 

XVII. Proposed Findings 

The CPSA requires the Commission to 

make certain findings when issuing a 

consumer product safety standard. 15 

U.S.C. 2058(f)(1), (f)(3). The proposed 

findings for this proposed rule are stated 

in the appendix for proposed part 1264 

and are based on information provided 

throughout this preamble. While the 

proposed findings are largely similar to 

those proposed in the 2017 NPR, they 

reflect newly available information. 

XVIII. Request for Comments 

We invite all interested persons to 

submit comments on any aspect of the 

proposed rule. The Commission 

specifically seeks comments on the 

following topics: 

A. Scope 

• Whether certain types of table saws, 

such as mini or micro tables saws, or 

table saws that are used primarily for 

commercial or industrial use, should be 

excluded from the scope of the rule; 

• Whether the scope of the rule 

should be expanded to include types of 

saws other than table saws that may 

present a similar blade-contact hazard 

(e.g., tile saws); 

• Whether the definition of table saws 

should be revised, or whether other 

definitions are necessary; and 

• Home-made table saws or other 

dangerous alternatives consumers may 

pursue if they are unwilling or are 

unable to purchase a table saw with 

AIM capabilities. 

B. Market Information 

• Table saw sales by table saw type 

(bench, contractor, and cabinet), and 

information on the expected product life 

of each type of table saw; 

• Opportunities to develop or 

otherwise obtain access to AIM 

technology for table saws, the time 

required to realize those opportunities, 

related barriers to access, and the 

anticipated cost of obtaining access to 

AIM technology; and 

• The cost of AIM components, 

estimates of development and retooling 

costs, and expected time requirements 

to complete the development and 

retooling processes, including with 

respect to battery powered table saws. 

C. Utility 

• What impacts AIM technology may 

have on the utility of table saws for 

consumers. 

D. Effectiveness 

• The effectiveness of AIM 

technologies. CPSC estimates that the 

requirements of the proposed rule 

would reduce the societal costs of bladecontact injuries by approximately 90 

percent. The Commission seeks 

comments from the public on this 

estimate; 

• The extent to which table saws are 

used for cutting wet wood or conductive 

materials such as non-ferrous metals; 

• The extent to which the AIM 

technology may be bypassed; and 

• The extent to which consumers may 

switch to alternative, potentially unsafe 

methods to cut wood if table saws are 

required to be equipped with AIM 

technology. 

E. Manufacturing Costs 

• Information on manufacturing 

costs. The Commission seeks comments 

that would allow us to make more 

precise estimates with respect to the 

cost impact of a rule requiring the use 

of AIM technology on table saws; and 

• The feasibility of incorporating AIM 

technology into the design of small 

benchtop table saws, including battery 

powered benchtop table saws. 

F. Test Requirements 

• How different detection methods 

may be applied as part of an AIM 

system, and appropriate test methods to 

properly evaluate the triggering of AIM 

systems employing these detection 

methods; 

• Studies or tests that have been 

conducted to evaluate AIM technology 

in table saws; and 

• Studies, research, or tests on the 

speed of the human hand/finger while 

woodworking and during actual bladecontact incidents, in particular. 

G. Regulatory Alternatives 

• Whether a 36-month effective date 

for the proposed rule is reasonable, or 

whether a longer or shorter effective 

date is warranted; 

• The feasibility of limiting or 

exempting a type or subset of table saws 

from the proposed rule; and 

• The potential impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities, 

especially small businesses. 

H. Anti-Stockpiling 

• The limits on manufacturing or 

exporting contained in the proposed 

rule’s anti-stockpiling provision; and 

• The anti-stockpiling provision’s 

base period. 

Comments should be submitted in 

accordance with the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this document. 

XIX. Notice of Opportunity for Oral 

Presentation 

Section 9 of the CPSA requires the 

Commission to provide interested 

parties ‘‘an opportunity for oral 

presentation of data, views, or 

arguments.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). The 

Commission must keep a transcript of 

such oral presentations. Id. Any person 

interested in making an oral 

presentation must contact the 

Commission, as described under the 

DATES and ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

XX. Promulgation of a Final Rule 

Section 9(d)(1) of the CPSA requires 

the Commission to promulgate a final 

consumer product safety rule within 60 

days of publishing a proposed rule. 15 

U.S.C. 2058(d)(1). Otherwise, the 

Commission must withdraw the 

proposed rule if it determines that the 

rule is not reasonably necessary to 

eliminate or reduce an unreasonable 

risk of injury associated with the 

product or is not in the public interest. 

Id. However, the Commission can 

extend the 60-day period, for good cause 

shown, if it publishes the reasons for 

doing so in the Federal Register. Id. 

The Commission finds that there is 

good cause to extend the 60-day period 

for this rulemaking. Under both the 

APA and the CPSA, the Commission 

must provide an opportunity for 

interested parties to submit written 

comments on a proposed rule. 5 U.S.C. 

553; 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). The 

Commission is providing 60 days for 

interested parties to submit written 

comments. A shorter comment period 

may limit the quality and utility of 

information CPSC receives in 

comments, particularly for areas where 

it seeks data and other detailed 

information that may take time for 

commenters to compile. Additionally, 

the CPSA requires the Commission to 

provide interested parties with an 

opportunity to make oral presentations 

of data, views, or arguments. 15 U.S.C. 

2058. This requires time for the 

Commission to arrange a public meeting 

for this purpose and provide notice to 

interested parties in advance of that 

meeting, if any interested party requests 

the opportunity to present such 

comments. After receiving written and 

oral comments, CPSC staff must have 

time to review and evaluate those 

comments. 

These factors make it impractical for 

the Commission to issue a final rule 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74937 

within 60 days of this proposed rule. 

Moreover, issuing a final rule within 60 

days of the NPR may limit commenters’ 

ability to provide useful input on the 

rule, as well as CPSC’s ability to 

evaluate and take that information into 

consideration in developing a final rule. 

Accordingly, the Commission finds that 

there is good cause to extend the 60-day 

period for promulgating the final rule 

after publication of the proposed rule. 

XXI. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated in this 

preamble, the Commission proposes 

requirements to address an 

unreasonable risk of injury associated 

with table saws. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1264 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Information, Safety, Table saws. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

add part 1264 to title 16 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 1264—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

BLADE–CONTACT INJURIES ON 

TABLE SAWS 

Sec. 

1264.1 Scope, purpose and effective date. 

1264.2 Definitions. 

1264.3 Requirements. 

1264.4 Test procedures. 

1264.5 Prohibited stockpiling. 

Appendix to Part 1264—Findings Under the 

Consumer Product Safety Act 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058 and 2076. 

§ 1264.1 Scope, purpose and effective 

date. 

(a) This part, a consumer product 

safety standard, establishes 

requirements for table saws, as defined 

in § 1264.2. These requirements are 

intended to reduce an unreasonable risk 

of injury associated with blade-contact 

injuries on table saws. 

(b) Any table saw manufactured after 

[effective date of final rule] shall comply 

with the requirements stated in 

§ 1264.3. 

§ 1264.2 Definitions. 

In addition to the definitions in 

section 3 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051), the 

following definition applies for 

purposes of this part: 

Table saw means a woodworking tool 

that has a motor-driven circular saw 

blade, which protrudes through the 

surface of a table. Table saws include 

bench saws, jobsite saws, contractor 

saws, hybrid saws, cabinet saws, and 

sliding saws. Table saws may be 

powered by alternating current from a 

wall outlet or direct current from a 

battery. 

§ 1264.3 Requirements. 

(a) General. All table saws covered by 

this standard shall meet the 

requirements stated in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(b) Test. All table saws, when 

powered on, must limit the depth of cut 

to no more than 3.5 mm when the center 

axis of a test probe is moving parallel to, 

and 15 ± 2 mm above, the tabletop at a 

rate of 1 meter per second, and contacts 

a spinning saw blade that is set at its 

maximum height setting. 

(c) Test Probe. The test probe shall act 

as the surrogate for a human body/finger 

and allow for the accurate measurement 

of the depth of cut to assess compliance 

with paragraph (b) of this section. 

§ 1264.4 Test procedures. 

Any test procedure that will 

accurately determine compliance with 

the standard may be used. 

§ 1264.5 Prohibited stockpiling. 

(a) Base period. The base period for 

table saws is the 12-month period 

immediately preceding the 

promulgation of the final rule. 

(b) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and 

importers of table saws shall not 

manufacture or import table saws that 

do not comply with the requirements of 

this part in any 12-month period 

between [date of promulgation of the 

final rule] and [effective date of the final 

rule] at a rate that is greater than 115 

percent of the rate at which they 

manufactured or imported table saws 

during the base period. 

Appendix to Part 1264—Findings 

Under the Consumer Product Safety Act 

The Consumer Product Safety Act requires 

that the Commission, in order to issue a 

standard, make the following findings and 

include them in the rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3). 

(a) Degree and Nature of the Risk of Injury 

In 2017, there were an estimated 26,500 

table saw blade-contact, emergency 

department treated injuries. Of these, an 

estimated 25,600 injuries (96. 4 percent) 

involved the finger. The most common 

diagnoses in blade-contact injuries were 

lacerations (approximately 16,100 injuries, or 

60.9 percent of total injuries), fractures 

(approximately 5,500 injuries, or 20.6 

percent), and amputations (approximately 

2,800 injuries, or 10.7 percent). 

On a broader scale, NEISS data collected 

by CPSC staff indicates that, from 2010 to 

2021, there were an average of approximately 

30,600 table saw blade-contact injuries per 

year. Staff determined that there was no 

discernible change in the pattern of bladecontact injuries or types of injuries over this 

period and detected no statistically 

significant downward trend over the period. 

Staff also conducted a trend analysis to 

include the rate of injury per 10,000 table 

saws in use for each year in the analysis. The 

analysis suggested that there was no 

discernible change in the risk of injury 

associated with blade contact related to table 

saws over this period, despite the transition 

of the market to modular blade guards and 

riving knives to meet voluntary standard 

requirements intended to reduce bladecontact injuries. 

(b) Number of Consumer Products Subject to 

the Rule 

The number of table saws in use was 

estimated with the CPSC’s Product 

Population Model (PPM), a statistical model 

that projects the number of products in use 

given examples of annual product sales and 

product failure rates. Total annual shipments 

of all table saws to the U.S. market from 2002 

to 2017 ranged from 429,000 to 825,000, and 

total annual shipments from 2018 to 2020 are 

estimated to have ranged from 746,000 to 

995,000. CPSC staff estimated that bench 

saws account for about 79 percent of the 

units sold and have an average product life 

of 10 years; contractor saws (including 

hybrids) account for 12 percent of the units 

sold and have an average product life of 17 

years; and cabinet saws account for 

approximately 9 percent of the units sold and 

have an average product life of 24 years. 

Based on this information, staff projected that 

a total of about 8.2 million table saws were 

in use in the United States in 2017, including 

about 5.35 million bench saws (about 65.25 

percent), 1.4 million contractor saws (about 

17.1 percent), and 1.46 million cabinet saws 

(about 17.65 percent). 

(c) Need of the Public for the Product and 

Probable Effect on Utility, Cost, and 

Availability 

Consumers commonly purchase table saws 

for the straight sawing of wood and other 

materials, and more specifically, to perform 

rip cuts, cross cuts, and non-through cuts. 

Because operator finger/hand contact with 

the table saw blade is a dominant hazard 

pattern, the performance requirement would 

limit the depth of cut and significantly 

reduce the frequency and severity of bladecontact injuries on table saws. 

However, the rule will increase table saw 

production costs. CPSC expects that the 

prices for the least expensive bench saws 

now available would more than double, to 

$400 or more. In general, the retail prices of 

bench saws could increase by as much as 

$285 to $700 per unit, and the retail prices 

of contractor and cabinet saws could rise by 

as much as $450 to $1,080 per unit. These 

higher prices may be mitigated in the longer 

run, but the extent of any future mitigation 

is unknown. 

Because of the likely decline in sales 

following the promulgation of a rule, 

consumers who choose not to purchase a 

new table saw due to the higher price will 

experience a loss in utility by forgoing the 

use of table saws, or because they will 

continue to use older saws that they would 

have preferred to replace. There may also be 

some other impacts on utility, such as an 

increase in the weight and (potentially) the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74938 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

size of table saws. This factor may have a 

relatively small impact on the heavier and 

larger contractor and cabinet saws but could 

reduce the portability of some of the smaller 

and lighter bench saws. 

(d) Other Means To Achieve the Objective of 

the Rule, While Minimizing the Impact on 

Competition and Manufacturing 

The Commission considered alternatives to 

the rule. For example, the Commission 

considered not taking regulatory action, 

deferring to the voluntary standard 

development process, exempting or limiting 

certain table saws from regulation, extending 

the rule’s effective date, and relying on 

information and education campaigns. 

However, the Commission finds that these 

alternatives would not adequately mitigate 

the unreasonable risk of blade-contact 

injuries on table saws. 

(e) Rule and Effective Date are Reasonably 

Necessary To Eliminate or Reduce 

Unreasonable Risk of Injury 

CPSC estimates that 26,500 table sawrelated injuries involving blade contact were 

treated in hospital emergency departments in 

2017. Based on this estimate of blade-contact 

injuries initially treated in hospital EDs, 

CPSC’s injury cost model projects an 

additional 22,675 blade-contact injuries 

treated in other treatment settings. Thus, 

there was an estimated annual total of about 

49,176 medically treated blade-contact 

injuries in 2017. An estimated 96.4 percent 

of these injuries involved the finger. The 

most common diagnoses in blade-contact 

injuries are laceration injuries, fractures, 

amputations, and avulsion. Thousands of 

amputations (an estimated 2,800 injuries in 

2017 alone) occur each year on table saws. 

When compared to all other workshop 

products, table saws account for an estimated 

52.4 percent of all amputations related to 

workshop products in 2015. 

Existing safety devices, such as the blade 

guard and riving knife, do not adequately 

reduce the number or severity of bladecontact injuries on table saws. Table saws 

have been equipped with these passive safety 

devices since 2010, and there is no evidence 

that these safety devices have adequately 

reduced or mitigated blade-contact injuries. 

In CPSC’s 2017 Special Study, an analysis of 

each individual case provided anecdotal 

information on the usage of modular and 

traditional blade guards. Overall, of the 

estimated 26,500 table saw blade-contact 

injuries treated in emergency departments in 

2017, the blade guard was not in use in an 

estimated 88.9 percent of injuries (23,600). 

Anecdotally, the blade guard was not in use 

for 89.2 percent of the cases (91 of 102 cases) 

involving table saws equipped with 

traditional blade guards, and the blade guard 

was not in use in 88.0 percent of the cases 

(22 of 25 cases) involving table saws 

equipped with modular blade guards. 

CPSC’s trend analysis of the annual 

estimated number of emergency departmenttreated injuries associated with table saws 

covered two timespans after the voluntary 

standard implemented the requirement for 

riving knives and modular blade guards on 

table saws (2010 to 2021 and 2015 to 2021). 

The data showed that there was no 

discernible change in the number of injuries 

or types of injuries associated with table saw 

blade contact over either of the analyzed 

periods. A trend analysis to assess the risk of 

injury per 10,000 table saws in use also 

showed there was no discernible change in 

the risk of injury associated with table saw 

blade contact over the analyzed time periods. 

The net benefits for the proposed rule 

would range from approximately $3,153 per 

bench saw to approximately $11,597 per 

cabinet saw over each unit’s expected 

product life. Aggregate net benefits over 

approximately 1 year’s production and sale 

of table saws could, across all categories of 

table saws, range from about $1.28 billion to 

$2.32 billion. 

The proposed rule includes an effective 

date of 36 months. The Commission 

considered a later effective date to mitigate 

the impact of the proposed rule for some 

manufacturers, but a later date could also 

delay a market-wide distribution of table 

saws with AIM technology. Given the net 

benefits expected from incorporating AIM 

technology, delaying the effective date of the 

proposed rule would also delay the expected 

benefits of the rule. 

The Commission concludes that there is an 

unreasonable risk of injury associated with 

blade-contact injuries on table saws and finds 

that the rule and the effective date is 

reasonably necessary to reduce that 

unreasonable risk of injury. 

(f) Public Interest 

This rule is intended to address an 

unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on 

table saws. The rule would reduce and 

mitigate the severity of blade-contact injuries 

on table saws in the future; thus, the rule is 

in the public interest. 

(g) Voluntary Standards 

The current voluntary standard for table 

saws is Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) 

62841–3–1, Electric Motor-Operated HandHeld Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn 

and Garden Machinery Part 3–1: Particular 

Requirements for Transportable Table Saws. 

This standard specifies that table saws shall 

be provided with a modular blade guard and 

riving knife. 

The voluntary standard does not 

adequately address blade-contact injuries on 

table saws. There has been no statistically 

significant reduction in the number or 

severity of blade-contact injuries from 2008 

to 2021. The relevant voluntary standards 

began requiring tables saws to include 

modular blade guard systems in 2010. In 

addition, available data indicates that a large 

percentage of table saw users encounter 

circumstances in which blade guards must be 

removed in order to effectively use their 

saws, and at least 100 known blade-contact 

injuries involving table saws equipped with 

modular blade guard systems have occurred. 

(h) Reasonable Relationship of Benefits to 

Costs 

Based on CPSC staff’s analysis of NEISS 

data and the CPSC’s Injury Cost Model (ICM), 

the Commission finds that the rule would 

address an estimated 49,176 medically 

treated blade-contact injuries annually. The 

societal costs of these injuries (in 2021 

dollars and using a 3 percent discount rate) 

amounted to about $3.97 billion in 2021. 

Overall, medical costs and work losses 

account for about 31 percent of these costs, 

or about $1.2 billion. The intangible costs 

associated with pain and suffering account 

for the remaining 69 percent of injury costs. 

Increased manufacturing costs, as well as 

the expected costs of replacement parts for 

the AIM system, would range from about 

$338 to $1,210 per bench saw, about $531 to 

$1,376 per contractor saw, and about $576 to 

$1,276 per cabinet saw. These costs likely 

would be mitigated somewhat over time, but 

the extent of any future mitigation is 

unknown. Based on one year’s production 

and sale of table saws, aggregate gross costs 

could range from about $208 million to $400 

million annually. In addition to these direct 

manufacturing and replacement parts costs, 

many firms would likely need to pay royalty 

fees to patent holders for the AIM 

technology, which CPSC estimates could 

amount to approximately 8 percent of saws’ 

wholesale price. 

Additionally, some consumers who would 

have purchased table saws at the lower preregulatory prices will likely choose not to 

purchase new table saws due to price 

increases. The cost impact of the proposed 

rule on market sales may reduce aggregate 

sales by as much as 17 percent to 50 percent 

annually. The decline in sales would result 

in lost utility to consumers who choose not 

to purchase table saws because of the higher 

prices. Further reductions in consumer 

utility may result from the added weight, and 

hence, reduced portability associated with 

addition the AIM technology on table saws. 

Nevertheless, because of the substantial 

societal costs attributable to blade-contact 

injuries (nearly $4 billion annually), and the 

expected high rate of effectiveness of the rule 

in preventing those injuries, the estimated 

aggregate net benefits are expected to range 

from about $1.28 billion to $2.32 billion 

annually. Therefore, the Commission 

concludes that the benefits expected from the 

rule bear a reasonable relationship to its 

costs. 

(i) Least Burdensome Requirement That 

Would Adequately Reduce the Risk of Injury 

The Commission considered less 

burdensome alternatives to the proposed rule 

addressing blade-contact injuries on table 

saws and concluded that none of these 

alternatives would adequately reduce the risk 

of injury. 

(1) Take no regulatory action. The 

Commission considered not taking any 

regulatory action. Under this alternative, 

table saws would continue to use existing 

passive safety devices, such as blade guards, 

riving knives, and anti-kickback pawls. 

Additionally, table saws with the AIM 

technology are already available for 

consumers who want and can afford them, 

albeit to a limited extent. However, not 

taking any action would leave the 

unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on 

table saws unaddressed. Based on the 

severity of injuries and recurring hazard 

patterns of blade-contact injuries, the absence 

of any statistically significant decline in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 74939 

those injuries over time, inaction by 

voluntary standards organizations to address 

the blade-contact hazard effectively, and the 

high societal costs of these injuries, the 

Commission believes a performance 

requirement is necessary to reduce the 

unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on 

all table saws. 

(2) Later effective date. The proposed rule 

would require an effective date that is 36 

months after the final rule is published in the 

Federal Register. An effective date later than 

36 months could further reduce the impact 

of the rule on manufacturers because it 

would allow them additional time to benefit 

from the development of new AIM 

technologies by diverse suppliers, spread the 

costs of developing or negotiating for the 

rights to use AIM technology, modify the 

design of their table saws to incorporate the 

AIM technology, and retool their factories for 

production. However, almost certainly, a 

later effective date would also delay the 

ubiquitous availability of table saws with 

AIM technology into the market. Because we 

anticipate that a longer period will not be 

necessary for commercial availability of AIM 

technologies from diverse suppliers, the 

Commission finds that a 36-month effective 

date from the issuance of a final rule is an 

appropriate length of time. 

(3) Exempt contractor and cabinet saws, or 

industrial saws, from a product safety rule. 

The Commission considered whether to 

exempt certain types of saws commonly used 

by professional, commercial, or industrial 

users, based on their size, weight, power, or 

electrical specifications. Based on the 

severity of injuries and recurring hazard 

patterns of blade-contact injuries, coupled 

with the high societal costs of these injuries, 

though, a performance requirement is 

necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk of 

blade-contact injuries on all table saws. 

Moreover, there is no clear dividing line 

between consumer and professional saws. 

(4) Limit the applicability of the rule to 

some, but not all, table saws. The 

Commission considered limiting the scope of 

the rule to a subset of table saws to allow 

manufacturers to produce both table saw 

models with AIM technology, and models 

without AIM technology. However, based on 

the severity of injuries and recurring hazard 

patterns of blade-contact injuries, coupled 

with the high societal costs of these injuries, 

the Commission finds that a performance 

requirement is necessary to reduce the 

unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on 

all table saws. 

(5) Information and education campaign. 

The Commission considered whether to 

conduct an information and education 

campaign informing consumers about the 

dangers of blade-contact hazards, and the 

benefits of AIM technology. Although such a 

campaign could help inform consumers, 

without a performance requirement this 

approach would not be sufficient to address 

the unreasonable risk of blade-contact 

injuries on table saws. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23898 Filed 10–31–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0179] 

RIN 0910–AI75 

Prior Notice: Adding Requirement To 

Submit Mail Tracking Number for 

Articles of Food Arriving by 

International Mail and Timeframe for 

Post-Refusal and Post-Hold 

Submissions 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA, the Agency, or 

we) is proposing to amend its prior 

notice regulations to add a requirement 

that the prior notice for articles of food 

arriving by international mail include 

the name of the mail service and a mail 

tracking number and add a requirement 

that prior notice and food facility 

registration information be submitted 

within a certain timeframe, after certain 

notices of refusal or hold have been 

issued (‘‘post-refusal’’ and ‘‘post-hold’’ 

submission). We are also proposing 

certain technical changes, including 

those that reflect expanded capabilities 

of the Automated Broker Interface/ 

Automated Commercial Environment/ 

International Trade Data System (ABI/ 

ACE/ITDS) and the Prior Notice 

Systems Interface (PNSI). These 

amendments, if finalized, will improve 

program efficiency and better enable 

FDA to protect the U.S. food supply and 

public health. 

DATES: Either electronic or written 

comments on the proposed rule must be 

submitted by January 30, 2024. Submit 

written comments (including 

recommendations) on the collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) by January 

2, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

as follows. Please note that late, 

untimely filed comments will not be 

considered. The https://

www.regulations.gov electronic filing 

system will accept comments until 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of 

January 30, 2024. Comments received by 

mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/ 

paper submissions) will be considered 

timely if they are received on or before 

that date. 

Electronic Comments 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments submitted electronically, 

including attachments, to https://

www.regulations.gov will be posted to 

the docket unchanged. Because your 

comment will be made public, you are 

solely responsible for ensuring that your 

comment does not include any 

confidential information that you or a 

third party may not wish to be posted, 

such as medical information, your or 

anyone else’s Social Security number, or 

confidential business information, such 

as a manufacturing process. Please note 

that if you include your name, contact 

information, or other information that 

identifies you in the body of your 

comments, that information will be 

posted on https://www.regulations.gov. 

• If you want to submit a comment 

with confidential information that you 

do not wish to be made available to the 

public, submit the comment as a 

written/paper submission and in the 

manner detailed below (see ‘‘Written/ 

Paper Submissions’’ and 

‘‘Instructions’’). 

Written/Paper Submissions 

Submit written/paper submissions as 

follows: 

• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for 

written/paper submissions): Dockets 

Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and 

Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers 

Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. 

• For written/paper comments 

submitted to the Dockets Management 

Staff, FDA will post your comment, as 

well as any attachments, except for 

information submitted, marked and 

identified, as confidential, if submitted 

as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’ 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket No. FDA– 

2011–N–0179 for ‘‘Information Required 

in Prior Notice of Imported Food.’’ 

Received comments, those filed in a 

timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be 

placed in the docket and, except for 

those submitted as ‘‘Confidential 

Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at 

https://www.regulations.gov or at the 

Dockets Management Staff between 9 

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, at 240–402–7500. 

• Confidential Submissions—To 

submit a comment with confidential 

information that you do not wish to be 

made publicly available, submit your 

comments only as a written/paper 

submission. You should submit two 

copies total. One copy will include the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1