Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2013 / Notices 31897 

Appendices to Antidisruptive Practices 

Authority—Commission Voting 

Summary; Statements of 

Commissioners; and List of Roundtable 

Participants and Commenters 

Appendix 1—Commission Voting 

Summary 

On this matter, Chairman Gensler and 

Commissioners Sommers, Chilton, O’Malia, 

and Wetjen voted in the affirmative. No 

Commissioners voted in the negative. 

Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman 

Gary Gensler 

I support the Interpretive Guidance and 

Policy Statement regarding disruptive 

practices on swap execution facilities and 

designated contract markets. As part of 

market reform, Congress expressly prohibited 

certain trading practices that were deemed 

disruptive of fair and equitable trading on 

CFTC-registered entities, such as swap 

execution facilities and designated contract 

markets. 

These provisions are important because it 

is a core mission of the CFTC to protect the 

markets against abusive and disruptive 

practices, particularly those that impede 

critical price discovery functions. 

The Interpretive Guidance and Policy 

Statement provides additional guidance to 

market participants regarding the scope of 

conduct and trading practices that would 

violate the law. For instance, the Commission 

interprets this provision, section 747 of the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, to apply to any 

trading, practices or conduct on registered 

SEFs or DCMs. 

The guidance addresses the comments the 

Commission received in response to the 

proposal, including a roundtable. 

Appendix 3—Parties Submitting 

Comment Letters in Response To 

Disruptive Trading Practices Proposed 

Interpretive Order 

Banking Firms Consolidated (‘‘BF’’) 

Better Markets (‘‘BM’’) 

BG Americas & Global LNG (‘‘BGA’’) 

Chris Barnard 

Coalition for Derivatives End Users 

(‘‘Coalition’’) 

CME Group (‘‘CME’’) 

Commodity Markets Council (‘‘CMC’’) 

Futures Industry Association/Securities 

Industry and Financial Markets 

Association (‘‘FIA’’) 

GFI Group, Inc. (‘‘GFI’’) 

Hampton Technology Resources (‘‘HTR’’) 

InterContinentalExchange (‘‘ICE’’) 

International Swaps and Derivatives 

Association (‘‘ISDA’’) 

Managed Funds Association (‘‘MFA’’) 

MarketAxess 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange (‘‘MGE’’) 

Working Group of Commercial Energy Firms 

(‘‘Working Group’’) 

[FR Doc. 2013–12365 Filed 5–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

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 an opportunity for public 

comment on the proposed collection of 

certain information by the agency. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (PRA), federal agencies are 

required to publish notice in the 

Federal Register concerning each 

proposed collection of information and 

to allow 60 days for public comment in 

response to the notice. This notice 

solicits comments on a survey of table 

saw users to determine the effectiveness 

of modular blade guards. 

DATES: Submit written or electronic 

comments on the collection of 

information by July 29, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

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. 

The Commission does not accept 

comments submitted by electronic mail 

(email), except through 

www.regulations.gov. The Commission 

encourages you to submit electronic 

comments by using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, as described above. 

Written Submissions: Submit written 

submissions in the following way: Mail/ 

Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, 

or CD–ROM submissions), preferably in 

five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 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 notice. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If furnished at all, such 

information should be submitted in 

writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC–2011–0074, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. A copy of the draft survey is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

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: Under the 

PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal 

agencies must obtain approval from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct or sponsor. 

‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined 

in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 

1320.3(c) and includes agency requests 

or requirements that members of the 

public submit reports, keep records, or 

provide information to a third party. 

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal 

agencies to provide a 60-day notice in 

the Federal Register concerning each 

proposed collection of information 

before submitting the collection to OMB 

for approval. Accordingly, the CPSC is 

publishing notice of the proposed 

collection of information set forth in 

this document. 

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 the leading 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 to be an improvement over 

traditional hood guard designs, by 

providing better visibility, by being 

easier to remove and install, and by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

31898 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2013 / Notices 

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-toblade 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 know how consumers are using 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 the role of modular 

blade guards in the proposed rule. The 

data, along with testing results, subject 

matter input analysis, and other study 

information, will be used by the 

Commission to develop the proposed 

rule addressing consumer injuries 

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. No results from the survey 

will be generalized to the population. 

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 to go through a screening 

process, either online, or via the 

telephone. Respondents meeting the 

criteria of the survey—owners of table 

saws with the modular blade guard 

system—will participate in the followup, full-scale Computer Assisted 

Telephone Interviewing (CATI) survey 

about their usage of, and opinions 

about, the modular blade guard system. 

After completion of the full-scale CATI 

survey, each respondent will be sent a 

$50 check for completing the survey. 

CPSC staff anticipates that 

approximately 100 eligible respondents 

will be interviewed. Up to an additional 

100 respondents may be interviewed, if 

additional funding becomes available. 

A final report will summarize the data 

about modular blade use collected from 

the surveyed table saw owners. Any 

patterns that emerge can be considered 

in conjunction with other testing, 

subject matter expert analyses, and any 

other data gathered as part of the 

rulemaking process, to assess the 

potential effectiveness of the modular 

blade guard design and to inform 

rulemaking. Any patterns that emerge 

may also be used by CPSC staff to 

develop future studies. 

B. Burden Hours 

CPSC staff estimates that the 

recruitment stage time required to verify 

whether the 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 100 anticipated eligible 

respondents, time required in 

connection with the survey would be 

estimated at approximately 58 hours 

(100 × 0.58 hours) in the aggregate. 

According to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, March 2013, http:// 

www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm, 

the average compensational hourly rate 

is $28.89. The total cost burden for this 

study is estimated at $1,676. If an 

additional 100 respondents were 

interviewed, the total burden hours 

would be estimated at $3,352. 

The estimated cost to the federal 

government is $182,159.87 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 for an 

estimated cost of $49,488, the 

equivalent of a GS–14 Step 5 employee 

with an additional 30.8 percent added 

for benefits for an 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 $231,647.87 ($182,159.87 

plus $49,488). If an additional 100 

respondents are surveyed, the 

additional estimated cost to the federal 

government is $98,000 ($31,000 for 

recruiting + $67,000 for conducting 

survey), for a total estimated cost to the 

federal government of $329,647.87. 

C. Request for Comments 

The CPSC invites comments on these 

topics: 

• Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

• The accuracy of CPSC’s estimate of 

the burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques, 

when appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology. 

Dated: May 22, 2013. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12552 Filed 5–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Second Prehearing 

Conference; Update 

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES