PTI Urges Woodworkers, Consumers and Other Interested Parties to Comment on CPSC's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Table Saws

Introduction

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is being petitioned to impose a mandatory rule, in an effort to have the government require a specific active flesh detection technology for all table saws. On October 11, 2011, CPSC took a possible first step of prescribing such a mandatory rule by issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).

The company behind this effort at CPSC is SawStop, which is owned by patent attorney Stephen Gass. Mr. Gass, who holds an extensive network of over 70 U.S. patents (with more than 120 patent applications filed), has represented that SawStop's patent web would be infringed by any alternative flesh detection technology, including the one developed by PTI. Therefore, SawStop would be given a monopolistic position by CPSC if it were to adopt the rule requested in SawStop's petition. If the patent web of SawStop cannot be avoided, CPSC would in effect be imposing a design standard, rather than a performance standard (as applicable federal law requires). The mandatory rule would create a monopolistic advantage in the marketplace, generating millions of dollars for SawStop and Mr. Gass, and raising costs for consumers. A CPSC ruling in favor of the SawStop petition would also undermine and remove any incentive to the development of future new alternative table saw safety technology.

PTI’s Position on the ANPR

The Power Tool Institute (PTI), a trade association organized in 1968, is comprised of the nation's largest manufacturers of portable and stationary power tools. As discussed in more detail below, PTI opposes CPSC mandating specific technology that is covered by 70 patents for table saws, and urges CPSC to defer to the voluntary standard process.

What You Can Do

Now is the time to make your voice heard on a proposed government-mandated rule that could impose a specific patented technology on consumers and industry, creating a monopoly and raising prices for consumers. PTI is urging CPSC not to advance the rule and instead work with the industry to offer a suite of solutions that makes sense for the entire range of products.

PTI encourages woodworkers and all consumers and interested parties to submit comments to the ANPR by the CPSC's deadline of March 16, 2012.

Suggested Comment:

"I oppose the mandatory rule for table saws. Those at SawStop seek to mandate the use of a single technology, potentially creating a monopoly and undermining the development of new table saw safety technology. Instead of imposing a single technology that may not be appropriate for all table saws, CPSC should work with the power tool industry and others in the table saw community to offer a variety of solutions that make sense for the entire range of table saw products and users."

Additional Information About CPSC's Proposed Rule

The voluntary UL standard for table saw safety, UL 987, includes significantly improved user-friendly guard designs and other safety features such as a riving knife. The results have been extremely positive. These new guarding systems are modular and offer excellent visibility and ease of removal and installation. The new guard systems, including the riving knife, protect the operator from blade contact and injuries caused by thrown objects from kickback.

Since the 4th quarter of 2007, manufacturers have introduced over 800,000 saws with newly designed guard systems which meet the requirements of the updated UL 987 safety standard. The injury data utilized by CPSC to justify moving forward with the ANPR did not include any data regarding saws with the new and improved guard system. In four years since the introduction of the new guarding systems, there has been only one reported blade contact injury on a table saw with the new guard system.

SawStop saws are available to any consumer who chooses to purchase them. SawStop technology is currently available on saws such as cabinet or contractor saws, which constitute 30.6% of saws on the market. After years of promises, SawStop is only now getting ready to release its version of a portable bench top saw with a flesh sensing technology. However, based on pre-introduction publications in woodworking magazines, this table saw that will cost close to $1,000 is not the small compact, lightweight and direct drive units that consumers are used to purchasing today at price range from $99 consumer units to $600 for a professional premium model. The belt drive configuration that is used by SawStop to implement the blade braking system and other aspects of its design make this table saw much larger, more cumbersome and heavy to handle.

The SawStop technology adds a significant price premium to each table saw category that uses it. Of course, each company that could secure a license from SawStop would independently establish its own pricing. However, it is clear that if SawStop technology were required, a current inexpensive bench top saw could increase in price from $100 to approximately $400 and the price of a current professional bench top saw could increase from $500 to approximately $800.

If the SawStop CPSC petition were granted, it could be tantamount to the elimination from the market of portable bench top saws as we know them today due to the cost of compliance. The increased cost of even the least expensive table saws would result in power tool users resorting to unsafe methods to accomplish cuts normally performed on a table saw.

SawStop technology is not appropriate for all table saws or all users, and it does not mitigate injuries caused by an ejected workpiece during a kickback or injuries caused by flying debris ejected by the saw blade. SawStop's own data shows that operators are nearly five times more likely to contact SawStop's saw blade as opposed to an operator of a conventional saw. This increase in the accident rate on SawStop saws is likely due primarily to a user's decision to use the blade guard less frequently based upon a "sense of security" in having the SawStop flesh-sensing technology on the saw. This absence of the blade guarding system will result in an increased rate of facial or eye injuries caused by high velocity particles ejected by the saw blade as well as injuries caused by workpiece kickback.

More information on the comment process is included in the ANPR, which can be accessed at: www.gpo.gov.

More information on the issues is included in PTI's Facts-At-A-Glance, which can be accessed at: www.powertoolinstitute.com