BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 2218 (Williams)
As Amended April 25, 2012
Hearing Date: July 3, 2012
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
BCP
SUBJECT
Consumer Safety: Table saws
DESCRIPTION
This bill would prohibit a seller, on or after January 1, 2015,
from selling a new table saw in this state unless that table saw
is equipped with active injury mitigation technology, as
defined.
BACKGROUND
A table saw essentially consists of a circular saw blade
protruding through the surface of a table, which provides
support for the material being cut. The user can generally
adjust the height of the blade in order to determine the depth
of the cut. The user then pushes the wood into the saw blade to
make the cut. If the user's hand (or other appendage) gets too
close to the protruding blade when pushing a piece of wood, the
user could face anything from a serious cut to an amputation.
With respect to injuries, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission's 2007-08 Survey of Injuries Involving Stationary
Saws reported:
The total numbers of injuries to operators in calendar years
2007 and 2008 were 37,100 and 39,000, respectively. The
majority of the injuries to operators were due to blade
contacts (88.0 percent). Most of the injuries were to
fingers and hands, which account for 95.9 percent of the
injuries. Fingers were the most frequently injured body
parts (89.1 percent), followed by hands (6.8 percent). The
remaining 4.1 percent of injuries were to eyeballs, lower
(more)
AB 2218 (Williams)
Page 2 of ?
arms, lower trunks, wrists, heads, faces, and other body
parts. Laceration was the most frequent form of injury
(64.8 percent), followed by fracture (12.2 percent), and
amputation (10.5 percent). The injuries to fingers were
lacerations, amputations, fractures, avulsions, crushing, or
contusions/abrasions. However, the injuries to lower arms,
wrists, or hands were lacerations only. The injuries to
lower trunks, upper legs, or lower legs were lacerations or
contusions/abrasions. Finally, the injuries to heads or
faces were internal injuries or contusions/abrasions; and
injuries to eyeballs were due to foreign objects. (Id. at
p. 17.)
This bill, sponsored by SD3 (Sawstop), would, on or after
January 1, 2015, prohibit a seller from selling any new table
saw in California unless that table saw is equipped with active
injury mitigation technology.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes the Occupational Safety and Health
Standards Board to adopt, amend, or repeal occupational safety
and health standards and orders. The board shall adopt
standards at least as effective as the federal standards, as
specified. (Lab. Code Sec. 142.3.)
Existing regulation requires each hand-fed table saw to be
guarded by a hood which completely encloses that portion of the
saw blade above the table and that portion of the blade above
the material being cut. (8 C.C.R. 4300.1.)
Existing regulation provides that the hood or other guard shall
be so designed as to prevent a "kickback," or a separate
attachment that will prevent a "kickback" shall be provided.
"Anti-kickback" devices shall be designed to be effective for
all thicknesses of material. (8 C.C.R. 4300.1.)
This bill would provide that, on or after January 1, 2015, a
seller shall not sell any new table saw in this state unless
that table saw is equipped with active injury mitigation
technology.
This bill would define "active injury mitigation technology" as
technology to detect contact with, or dangerous proximity
between, a hand or finger and the teeth of the blade above the
table top of a table saw, and to prevent the blade from cutting
AB 2218 (Williams)
Page 3 of ?
the hand or finger deeper than one-eighth of an inch when the
hand or finger approaches any portion of the blade above the
table top at a speed of one foot per second from any direction
and along any path. Notwithstanding the prior sentence, active
injury mitigation technology may be temporarily deactivated by a
person so that a saw can cut material which would otherwise be
detected as a person.
This bill would define "seller" as any person who deals in or
engages in the business of selling table saws or any other
person who sells table saws in this state.
This bill would define "table saw" as a saw that is designed
primarily for cutting wood with a generally planar, circular
blade having teeth around its periphery and having a nominal
diameter of 12 inches or less, where the table saw includes a
table top for supporting a work piece, and where at least a
portion of the blade extends above the table top to cut a work
piece on the table top. Table saws vary in price, size, weight,
motors, drive systems, stands, housings, and other features.
Common names of various types of table saws include, but are not
limited to, bench saws, bench top saws, contractor saws, hybrid
saws, and cabinet saws.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
AB 2218 is landmark legislation requiring all new table saws
sold in California after January 1, 2015 to be equipped with
an active injury mitigation system. Examples of active
injury mitigation systems stop or retract the blade of a
table saw the moment it comes close to or in contact with
human skin to minimize injury.
AB 2218 mandates the end result of a performance-based
standard. The bill does not mandate a specific technology.
The bill simply requires new table saws to be equipped with
some type of active injury mitigation system. Table saw
manufacturers are free to develop their own active injury
mitigation systems.
2. Active injury mitigation technology
AB 2218 (Williams)
Page 4 of ?
This bill, sponsored by SD3 (Sawstop), would require every new
table saw sold in California after January 1, 2015 to be
equipped with "active injury mitigation technology." Although
supportive of safety standards, the coalition of opponents
contends that the proposed standard would "create a monopolistic
advantage in the marketplace for one company, Sawstop." The
sponsor asserts that the proposed standard is a performance
standard and that there "is simply nothing in AB 2218 that
favors one company's technology over another's, and that is as
it should be." As a result, the main issue debated by both
proponents and opponents is whether this bill would result in a
monopoly by one company.
a. SawStop
As background, the author describes SawStop as "one example of
an injury mitigation system. It has been available in the
marketplace since 2004, and works by stopping the blade so
quickly - within milliseconds of contact with human flesh -
that the injury to users is minimal, and can most often be
treated with a simple Band-aid. According to SawStop, its
products have prevented well over 1,000 serious injuries from
blade contact." SawStop's Internet Web site further states:
SawStop saws are equipped with a safety system that
detects when someone accidentally contacts the spinning
saw blade, and then stops the blade in milliseconds. In
most cases such an accident would result in just a nick
on a SawStop saw, instead of the devastating injury which
would likely occur on an ordinary table saw.
(http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works/white-paper/)
Staff notes that there is no dispute that SawStop would meet
the definition proposed by this bill, but, it remains unclear
whether it is possible for other companies to meet the
proposed standard by January 1, 2015 without infringing on
patents for injury mitigation technology.
b. Patent debate
The coalition of opposition asserts that if AB 2218 were to
pass, only four options exist: "a) License the technology
from SawStop. When manufacturers have tried to do this, they
have been told by SawStop that they must impose it on the
entire range of saws offered and pay exorbitant royalty fees.
. . . . b) Manufacturers could develop or utilize their own
AB 2218 (Williams)
Page 5 of ?
active mitigation technology and risk a patent infringement by
SawStop, which has acknowledged in public hearings that they
believe that no manufacturer will be able to introduce injury
mitigation technology that does not infringe on one of
SawStopÝ's]web of patents . . . c) Manufacturers could buy
SawStop table saws for resale to consumer. However, SawStop
has refused such offers. d) Manufacturers can give up and
cede the California market to SawStop." (Emphasis in
original.)
In response, the sponsor argues: "A review of patents
describing various table saw safety systems shows a wide
variety of different ways that companies have developed to
potentially comply with AB 2218 - although so far only SawStop
has chosen to offer a commercial product with such
technology." SD3 further notes that Makita has developed
active injury mitigation technology that uses radar to detect
a human hand, and that Bosch has developed at least two
systems that use radiation to detect a hand.
Although other parties appear to have patents related to
safety, it is unclear whether the competing products mentioned
by the sponsor actually work, or are able to be realistically
installed in a consumer table saw, or even if the actual
building of those products would violate a patent owned by
SD3. Regarding the potential for violating a patent held by
SD3, the Power Tool Institute (PTI), in opposition, asserts
that:
A PTI ÝJoint Venture of power tool manufacturers (JV)]
has developed a flesh sensing technology that reacts
faster, has a lower replacement cost of firing, and
mitigates injury to a greater degree when compared to the
SawStop technology. SawStop has stated that the JV
system likely will infringe its patents. In light of
this situation, manufacturers have to take this into
consideration knowing that introducing this alternative
technology will result in costly patent infringement
litigation (estimated to be at least 7 - 10 million
dollars for each party) with uncertain outcomes.
With respect to the origins of PTI's joint venture, an
article in the Oregonian on December 29, 2004, reported
that: "ÝStephen Gass (cofounder of SawStop)] figures the
Ýjoint venture] is designed to squelch his technology or get
around his patents. That may not be easy. He and his
partners have more than 50 patents on the technology,
AB 2218 (Williams)
Page 6 of ?
covering not only table saws but also similar systems for
band saws, circular saws and other power tools. 'We believe
it would be difficult to come up with anything that was
outside the scope of all our patents,' Gass said."
(Sickinger, Inventor of Safety Saw Hits a Block, The
Oregonian (Dec. 29, 2004).) Despite that statement, it is
unclear why a joint venture would spend the time and effort
developing a product if the final product clearly violated
patents not owned by the companies in the venture.
With respect to the ability to meet this bill's requirements,
SD3 asserts that "there is no doubt that ÝPTI has] more than
ample time and resources to bring such a product to the market
prior to 2015." As a result, since proponents and opponents
make completely contradictory claims (which are nearly
impossible to verify), as stated by the sponsor, all that
parties agree upon is that "so far only SawStop has chosen to
offer a commercial product with such technology."
3. Pending rulemaking
It should be noted that at least two entities, the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. (UL), are currently working on safety
standards for table saws. With respect to the federal rules,
the CPSC unanimously approved an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) on table saw blade contact injuries in October
of 2011. UL further notes that:
Parallel to that process, UL senior management met with the
CPSC in May 2011 to propose a working group that would
develop table saw safety performance criteria and associated
technology-specific testing methods appropriate for safety
standards. The Table Saw Safety Working Group was created
in the fall of 2011 and its membership includes a broad
representation from industry, research, and regulatory
stakeholders including representatives from the Power Tool
Institute (PTI), the CPSC, UL, Consumers Union, and SawStop.
After the Working Group develops performance criteria and
testing methods, a technical proposal will be submitted in
the UL Collaborative Standards Development System (CSDS) to
STP 745 as an update to UL 987. This ongoing work should
take anywhere from 12 - 18 months.
As a result, this bill could potentially codify a standard that
is different from either of the standards proposed by the CPSC
AB 2218 (Williams)
Page 7 of ?
and UL (whenever those processes conclude). Regarding that
potential, the sponsor states:
If the CPSC's rule differs, it will likely be in only small
ways - perhaps specifying a slightly greater or lesser
injury, or being more specific in regards to how testing for
compliance is to be assessed. In that case, the CPSC rule
would apply. It is very likely that any machine that would
comply with AB 2218 would also comply with any action by the
CPSC. If the California law is more protective than the
federal standard, California can apply for a waiver from the
federal standard.
It should be noted that the sponsor petitioned the CPSC to
initiate rulemaking for table saws in 2003 and proposed a rule
with a standard similar to that proposed by this bill. That
petition further stated: "SD3 will make the SawStop technology
available for license at a rate of not more than 8 Ýpercent] of
the wholesale cost of a saw if this standard is adopted. If saw
manufacturers license the SawStop technology, then those three
petitioners will likely benefit financially from the adoption of
this new standard. However, the proposed standard is
performance based, and is worded broadly enough to allow any
type of solution to the problem. The SawStop technology
demonstrates only one way to meet the proposed standard. There
may be other systems that could be used to satisfy the proposed
standard."
(http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/petition/Bladesawpt1.pdf
)
4. Safety debate
While all parties appear to agree that steps should be taken to
protect consumers from table saw injuries, the proponents and
opponents seem to completely disagree on what those steps should
be.
For example, PTI notes improvement in guards for table saws and
that those guards "protect the operator from blade contact and
injuries caused by thrown objects Ýwhile] SawStop protects from
only blade contact injuries." SD3, in response, asserts that
guards are not sufficient because they must be removed for many
tasks and that "many consumers never use blade guards, and even
if they do, nothing makes the new guards any safer than old
blade guards." As opposed to a blade guard, SawStop acts to
almost immediately stop the table saw blade upon contact with a
AB 2218 (Williams)
Page 8 of ?
hand or finger. Although that active injury mitigation
technology would appear to provide a significant amount of
protection (and security) for users of those saws, PTI asserts
that "Ýd]ata provided by SawStop concerning the number of table
saw units sold and the number of reported blade contact
incidences, proves that operators are nearly five times more
likely to contact the blade of a SawStop saw as opposed to the
operator of a conventional saw."
Both the sponsor and opponents cite testimony in the case of
Osorio v. One World Techs., Inc. (2011) 659 F.3d 81. In that
case, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
upheld product liability claims against Ryobi that asserted
their BTS 15 table saw was unacceptably dangerous due to
defective design. In upholding the jury verdict against Ryobi,
the Court of Appeals held:
The absence of an alternative design is a defining
characteristic of categorical liability theory. Here, an
alternative design was not only offered, but also discussed,
examined, and debated. At the district court the parties
explained and probed the merits of an alternative design
incorporating the SawStop system. Ryobi repeatedly
challenged Osorio's proposed design raising many of the
arguments against SawStop it now raises on appeal,
particularly on the issue of added weight. Just as we
conclude that the evidence presented was sufficient to allow
the case to reach the jury, it seems similarly plain that
considering the evidence before it, the jury simply agreed
with Osorio's case and found in his favor. (Id. at p. 89.)
As a result of that decision, staff notes that even absent this
bill, manufacturers are arguably incentivized to take additional
steps in order to prevent injury (including potentially
incorporating SawStop) to avoid potential liability for failing
to incorporate such technology.
5. Definition of active injury mitigation technology
Although the definition of "active injury mitigation technology"
is arguably a performance standard, certain parts of that
definition could be construed to codify aspects of SawStop
technology (although it could be argued that those components
are not proprietary to SawStop and could also be found in any
competing active injury mitigation technology).
AB 2218 (Williams)
Page 9 of ?
For example, the definition allows the technology to be
temporarily deactivated by a person so that the saw can cut
material that would otherwise be detected as a person --
similarly, SawStop saws must be placed in "Bypass Mode" to cut
wood that is very green or wet, or to cut conductive materials.
Similarly, the definition's provision limiting a cut to no
deeper than 1/8th of an inch would apply only when the hand or
finger is approaching at a speed of one foot per second (no
more, no less) - the owner's manual for a SawStop 10" Industrial
Cabinet Saw similarly provides that if a hand is approaching the
blade at one foot per second, the cut will be around 1/16th of
an inch. With respect to those standards, the UL asserts that
since there is no standardized test protocol, the method could
be interpreted in different ways and "therefore lose the
consistency and thoroughness that is needed when investigating
the acceptability of the injury mitigation technology."
It should be noted that the author's amendment in Comment 7
would strike the above criteria that could be construed to be
codifying aspects of the SawStop technology.
6. Additional arguments in support and opposition
The California Federation of Teachers, in support, notes that
this bill is important because "it uses new and existing
technologies related to table saws to prevent serious injuries
of students and the educators who teach them in vocational
educational courses." The California Medical Association
further asserts that by ensuring table saws are equipped with
appropriate safety devices, injuries and trips to the emergency
room could be prevented. The California Labor Federation
contends that the "technology presents very little cost to
owners and manufacturers Ýwhile the] negligible price increase
pales in comparison not only to the cost of the saw itself, but
also the immeasurable human toll of these brutal injuries."
The coalition of opponents additionally notes that all table
saws were redesigned effective 2010, that existing table saws in
inventory on the effective date of the bill would immediately
become valueless and un-sellable and that SawStop should compete
in the marketplace and persuade consumers to purchase its saws
based on the value to consumer. Grizzly Industrial Inc., in
opposition, asserts that "SawStop has refused to even sell us
their own SawStop branded table saws for resale to consumers,
yet they continue to push for this legislation that would only
allow the sale of SawStop products given the specified language
AB 2218 (Williams)
Page 10 of ?
of the bill."
7. Author's amendment in response to the concerns above
In response to the concerns raised above by the opposition, the
author offers the following amendment to modify the definition
of injury mitigation technology, by, among other things,
striking the depth and speed requirements. That language also
includes the word "prevent" so as to accommodate a more passive
technology that is not dependent on the active detection of a
hand or finger.
Author's amendments:
On page 2, strike out lines 7 through 16, inclusive, and
insert:
(a) "Injury mitigation technology" means technology to prevent
or detect contact with, or dangerous proximity between, a hand
or finger and the teeth of the blade above the table top of a
table saw, and to prevent the blade from causing severe injury
to the hand or finger.
Support : California Chapter of the American College of
Emergency Physicians; California Conference of Carpenters;
California Federation of Teachers; California Labor Federation;
California Medical Association; California Public Interest
Research Group; California State Association of Electrical
Workers; California State Council of Laborers; California State
Pipe Trades Council; Coalition of California Utility Employees;
Consumer Action; Consumer Attorneys of California; National
Consumers League; State Building and Construction Trades
Council; Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Opposition : California Business Properties Association;
California Chamber of Commerce; California Manufacturers &
Technology Association; California Retailers Association; Delta
Power Tool Corporation; Grizzly Industrial Inc; Home Depot;
Lowe's; National Federation of Independent Business; Power Tool
Institute; Sears Holdings
HISTORY
Source : SD3 (parent company of SawStop)
AB 2218 (Williams)
Page 11 of ?
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote :
Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee
(Ayes 8, Noes 1)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 64, Noes 4)
**************