```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7645-7648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02786]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

[Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office 
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; CPSC Table Saw User 
Survey

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) is 
announcing that a proposed collection of information regarding a survey 
of table saw users to determine the effectiveness of modular blade 
guards has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Written comments on this request for extension of approval of 
information collection requirements should be submitted by March 12, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, 
FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. All 
comments should be identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074. In 
addition, written comments also should be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074, or by mail/hand 
delivery/courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions), preferably 
in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 
20814; telephone (301) 504-7923. For access to the docket to

[[Page 7646]]

read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. The draft survey may be viewed under Docket No. 
CPSC-2011-0074, Supporting and Related Materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 
504-7815, or by email to: rsquibb@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background

A. Table Saw User Survey

    The CPSC is considering whether a new performance safety standard 
is needed to address an unreasonable risk of injury associated with 
table saws. On October 11, 2011, the Commission published an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for table saws, under the Consumer 
Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. (76 FR 62678). The ANPR 
explained that under the current voluntary standard, UL 987, Stationary 
and Fixed Electric Tools, published in November 2007, a new modular 
blade guard design, developed by a joint venture of table saw 
manufacturers, expanded the table saw guarding requirements. The new 
blade guard did not consist of a hood, but rather, a top-barrier 
guarding element and two side-barrier guarding elements. The new 
modular guard design was intended by UL to provide safety improvements 
over traditional hood guard designs, by providing better visibility, by 
being easier to remove and install, and by incorporating a permanent 
riving knife design. The revised standard also specified detailed 
design and performance requirements for the modular blade guard, riving 
knife, and anti-kickback device(s). The effective date for the new 
requirements in UL 987 was January 31, 2010.
    In the ANPR, the Commission expressed concern that the requirements 
in the voluntary standard for table saws, UL 987, which include a 
permanent riving knife and the new modular blade guard system, may not 
adequately address the operator blade contact injuries associated with 
table saw use. The Commission stated that:

    While we support the recent progress UL has made in improving 
the voluntary standard to address blade contact injuries by focusing 
solely on prevention of skin-to-blade contact, the standard 
requirements do not appear to address adequately the number or 
severity of blade contact injuries that occur on table saws, nor do 
they address the associated societal costs. In addition, while we 
believe that the new modular guard design is a significant 
improvement over the old guard design, the effectiveness of any 
blade guard system depends upon an operator's willingness to use it. 
Safety equipment that hinders the ability to operate the product 
likely will result in consumers bypassing, avoiding, or discarding 
the safety equipment. In addition, of the 66,900 table saw operator 
blade contact injuries in 2007 and 2008, approximately 20,700 
(30.9%) of the injuries occurred on table saws where the blade guard 
was in use. The current voluntary standard for table saws does not 
appear to address those types of injuries. Accordingly, we are 
particularly interested in obtaining information regarding current 
or developing voluntary standards that would address table saw blade 
contact injuries.

    76 FR 62683.
    Currently, the CPSC does not have information about actual use by 
consumers of the new modular blade guard. Because the usage patterns 
are directly linked to the safety of the user, additional data are 
needed to understand how consumers use the modular blade guard to 
determine how effective the design will be in preventing future 
injuries.
    The data collected from this survey will be used to help CPSC staff 
understand better how consumers are using the modular blade guard 
system, such as when consumers install and remove the blade guard, what 
type of cuts are being made without the blade guard, and/or what may be 
preventing the use of the blade guard. With additional information, the 
Commission will be able to evaluate better the role of modular blade 
guards on table saws. The data, along with other available test results 
and studies will be reviewed by the Commission in its consideration of 
whether a new performance safety standard is needed to address an 
unreasonable risk of injury associated with table saws.
    To gather the information, the CPSC will conduct a survey of 
consumers who own table saws with a modular blade guard system. Because 
the population of owners of table saws that were purchased with a 
modular blade guard is a specific and hard-to-reach population, the 
survey will be based on a convenience sample of participants recruited 
by various advertisement strategies. A convenience sample is a non-
probability sample, which is collected by the most efficient means of 
reaching a group of interest. No results from the survey will be 
generalized to the population or used to draw statistical inferences.
    To recruit respondents, advertisements will be placed on popular 
Web sites, in woodworking magazines, and posted in woodworking guilds 
with their cooperation. Respondents will have the option of going 
through a screening process, either online, or via telephone. 
Respondents meeting the criteria of the survey--owners of table saws 
with the modular blade guard system--will participate in the follow-up, 
full-scale Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) survey about 
their usage of, and opinions about, the modular blade guard system.
    CPSC staff anticipates that approximately 200 eligible respondents 
will complete the CATI interview survey. After completion of the full-
scale CATI survey, each respondent will be sent a $50 check for 
completing the survey. A final report will summarize the data about 
modular blade use collected from the surveyed table saw owners. Any 
patterns that emerge may also be used by CPSC staff to develop future 
studies.
    On May 28, 2013, the Commission sought comments on the proposed 
collection of information through a survey to obtain information from 
consumers (respondents) who own table saws with a modular blade guard 
system. 78 FR 31897.

B. Comments

    The Commission received five comments on the table saw survey. One 
commenter generally supported the survey. One commenter raised an issue 
regarding the SawStop technology but did not raise any issues related 
to the survey. That comment is outside the scope of the notice 
regarding the proposed information collection and will be treated as a 
comment to the ANPR. Comments were also submitted by Stephen Gass, the 
manufacturer of SawStop table saws, and the Power Tool Institute (PTI). 
PTI made two submissions. On May 13, 2013, prior to the publication of 
the May 28, 2013 notice, PTI submitted its own draft survey to the 
Commission for consideration. On July 26, 2013, PTI submitted comments 
on the CPSC's proposed survey.
    The Commission will continue to use the survey sponsored by the 
CPSC, which is tailored to address the CPSC staff's questions on table 
saw modular blade guard use. However, several changes have been made to 
the CPSC's survey, in response to comments from Mr. Gass and PTI, as 
discussed below.

1. Injury Data

    Comment: Mr. Gass states that to understand usage of the modular 
blade guard system, injured users should be surveyed to determine 
whether the injury occurred with the new modular

[[Page 7647]]

blade guard system or an older guard. According to Mr. Gass, if the new 
guards are truly effective, there should be a commensurate drop in the 
number of table saw injuries in the National Electronic Surveillance 
System (NEISS).
    Response: A reduction in injuries is the most direct way of 
assessing the effectiveness of the new modular blade guard. However, 
the currently available injury data do not provide that information. 
For example, NEISS data on table saw-related injuries do not indicate 
whether a blade guard was used, what type of blade guard was used, or 
how the blade guards were used. The CPSC has conducted a special study 
on injuries associated with table saws in 2007 and 2008. However, the 
addition of the revised modular blade guard system is a recent 
development and another special study is unlikely to gather sufficient 
data to assess the efficacy of the modular blade guard in injury 
prevention. Through the proposed survey, CPSC staff believes that more 
information regarding the use of the modular blade guard will become 
available, will supplement existing CPSC information and data, and will 
assist the Commission in identifying addressable hazards related to 
table saw use.

2. Definitions

    Comment: Both Mr. Gass and PTI state that clear definitions must be 
provided to all participants to identify properly the table saw used by 
the participant.
    Response: To identify the respondent's saw better, the revised 
survey provides that clear definitions of table saws (bench top 
portable bench saw, contractor saw, stationary saw) will be provided to 
all participants.

3. Number of Respondents

    Comment: Although PTI states that some useful information may be 
developed, PTI questions the utility of a survey that has only 100 
respondents, if the information is intended for use in developing a 
rule.
    Response: The primary goal of the survey is to help CPSC staff 
understand if and how the modular blade guard system is used by 
consumers. The principal benefit of the survey is to provide the 
Commission with important information about table saw use that is now 
lacking and would not be obtainable other than through such a survey. 
The survey now seeks two hundred responses (up from the 100 respondents 
initially sought), which will greatly expand the quantity and scope of 
existing information and significantly inform staff's evaluation of 
modular blade guard systems. To the extent that other studies, tests, 
or surveys have been performed to analyze table saw blade contact 
injuries, the Commission would review all available data in its 
consideration of whether a new performance safety standard is needed to 
address an unreasonable risk of injury associated with table saws.
    The population sought in the survey is a specific subset of all 
table saw users and is a hard-to-reach population. The survey seeks 
consumers who purchased table saws with a modular blade guard within 
the last 4 years (from 2009 and the present). Table saws purchased 
before 2009 do not meet the needs of the study; and the consumers who 
purchased table saws before 2009 will constitute a significant portion 
of current table saw owners. Accordingly, this survey will be based on 
a convenience sample of recruited participants by various advertisement 
strategies. No results from this study will be generalized to the 
population.

4. Years Covered by the Survey

    Comment: According to PTI, the screener and survey should cover 
years before 2009 because table saws with modular guards were on the 
market as of 2007.
    Response: Due to the limited number of table saws sold before 2009 
with a modular blade guard, the cost of recruiting participants would 
increase greatly if the survey were expanded to add table saws 
purchased before 2009. Few table saws had modular blade guards before 
2009, so significant additional data are not likely to be obtained from 
the period between 2007 and 2009. Because many more table saws 
manufactured in 2009 and later were sold with modular blade guards, the 
survey covers 2009 to the present.

5. New vs. Old Table Saws

    Comment: PTI states that the survey should focus only on new table 
saws purchased or received as a gift and that all questions regarding 
used table saws or table saws without modular blade guards should be 
removed.
    Response: The survey will not be limited to new table saws because 
there is a secondhand market for table saws. The survey seeks to obtain 
information on how table saw owners are using (or not using) their 
modular blade guard system. If table saw users are not using their 
modular blade guard system because they did not purchase, install, or 
receive one, that information is useful to CPSC staff. Similarly, if 
the lack of instructions prevents the user from installing and using 
the modular blade guard system, that information also will assist CPSC 
staff in understanding the use patterns of the modular blade guard 
system.

6. Screener Should Apply To All Woodworkers

    Comment: PTI states that the table saw survey should not terminate 
if the participant is using the saw only at work or at wood working 
facilities. According to PTI, the survey already establishes that the 
table saw is owned by the participant and not by the participant's 
employer or by a third party.
    Response: Many table saw owners are consumers who may use the table 
saw to perform work and for recreation. These participants are invited 
to complete the screener questions and survey, if applicable. However, 
if the table saw owner is using the table saw for work purposes only, 
or in a commercial woodworking facility, those woodworkers fall outside 
the scope of the survey, which is intended to assess how consumers 
would use the modular blade guard system.

7. Other Clarifications to the Screener/Survey

    Comment: PTI contends that the survey questions regarding table saw 
use and installation or removal of the modular blade guard require 
additional clarification or revision. PTI states that a more accurate 
picture of the traditional guarding system should be used in the table 
saw screener. In addition, PTI states that questions comparing modular 
blade guards to traditional blade guards should be removed or 
clarified.
    Response: In response to this comment, many of the questions 
related to the blade guard and certain types of cuts have been revised. 
A new picture of the traditional guard has been added, as suggested by 
the commenter. The questions have been clarified to specify the use and 
removal of the blade guard for both through or non-through cuts. In 
addition, other questions have been removed, including questions that 
were ambiguous or unrelated to the use of the modular blade guard 
system, such as questions on kickback and riving knife use. However, 
the survey does not modify questions comparing the use of the modular 
blade guard to the traditional blade guard because these questions 
ascertain overall attitudes for general blade guard use, and there is 
no need to distinguish between through cuts or non-through cuts for 
these questions.

[[Page 7648]]

B. Burden Hours

    CPSC staff estimates that the recruitment stage time required to 
verify whether a respondent fits the study's target group of consumers 
will not exceed 10 minutes, and the actual survey will not exceed 25 
minutes. Thus, total time per eligible respondent is estimated not to 
exceed 35 minutes. For the 200 anticipated eligible respondents, (which 
is up from the 100 respondents originally targeted) the total time 
required in connection with the survey would be estimated at 
approximately 116 hours (200 x 0.58 hours) in the aggregate. According 
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2013 (updated from March 
2013), the average hourly compensation rate for all workers is $29.23. 
The total cost burden to respondents for this study is estimated at 
$3,391.
    The estimated cost under the federal government contract is 
$276,585 for the costs of recruiting respondents and conducting the 
survey. In addition, one full-time CPSC employee will spend an 
estimated 600 hours of labor reviewing responses for a total estimated 
cost of $49,488, the equal to 600 hours at an hourly compensation rate 
of $57.08 for a GS-14 Step 5 employee, with an additional 30.8 percent 
added for benefits for a total hourly compensation rate of $82.48. 
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation,'' December 2012, Table 1, percentage of wages and 
salaries for all civilian management, professional, and related 
employees, http://www.bls.gov/ncs). Accordingly, the total estimated 
cost to the federal government is $326,073 ($276,585 plus $49,488).

    Dated: February 5, 2014.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-02786 Filed 2-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```