CPSC - How to Comment

riot_nrrd · Post by **riot_nrrd** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:38 pm

So the CPSC is issuing an "Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking." This is something I would encourage you all to submit comments on. You do not have to be an attorney to do this - just follow the instructions. I am not an attorney, but I'll be submitting comments - I'll post a copy of what I submit, in case anyone wants to borrow from it.

If you want to submit comment, here is how to do so:

DATES: Written comments and submissions in response to this notice must be received by December 12, 2011. UPDATED: New date is February 10, 2012

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. To ensure timely processing of
comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by
electronic mail (e-mail) except through http://www.regulations.gov.

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 502, 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 electronically. 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.

Here is the offical notice from the Federal Register.
http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/frnotices/fr12/tablesawANPR.pdf

RiotNrrd

algale · Post by **algale** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:59 am

RiotNrrd,

This was a nice service to provide to the forum and I quite agree that if members of the forum have opinions, pro or con, they should take advantage of the opportunity to comment.

I am surprised, however, that nobody has responded to your post. A number of people on this forum appear to have very strong (mostly negative) feelings about SawStop and yet when they are told they have an opportunity to convey their views to the decision makers at the CPSC in Washington, DC, they appear to have gone silent -- at least judging by the lack of responses to your post.

I suspect if the decision comes down to implement some form of braking technology (either the SawStop technology or some performance standard) there will be a great deal of karping and complaining on this forum about out of touch bureaucrats in Washington from people who never told those bureaucrats what their opinions were.

beeg · Post by **beeg** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:12 am

Algale, there's one reply, but 81 views so for.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:35 am

algale wrote:RiotNrrd,

This was a nice service to provide to the forum and I quite agree that if members of the forum have opinions, pro or con, they should take advantage of the opportunity to comment.

I am surprised, however, that nobody has responded to your post. A number of people on this forum appear to have very strong (mostly negative) feelings about SawStop and yet when they are told they have an opportunity to convey their views to the decision makers at the CPSC in Washington, DC, they appear to have gone silent -- at least judging by the lack of responses to your post.

I suspect if the decision comes down to implement some form of braking technology (either the SawStop technology or some performance standard) there will be a great deal of karping and complaining on this forum about out of touch bureaucrats in Washington from people who never told those bureaucrats what their opinions were.

You cannot assume that because noone has responded to this post noone has responded to CPSC. I responded - for whatever good it might do. If I had the money to hire a lobbyist, I might be able to have an effect - but I responded.

Never fear for change is near.

With all the hype that has been generated over this, the manufacturers are going to respond - with something that will satisfy whatever CPSC comes out with.

You can also bet that CPSC is not going to mandate "Sawstop" nor will they mandate "flesh detection". They will attempt to establish a requirement for something to be developed to "reduce serious injury".

For the meantime - "KEEP YOUR FINGERS OUT OF THE RED ZONE" unless you want to loose them.

Use your UPPER SAW GUARD. If you don't have one GET ONE. If you don't want to or can't afford one "KEEP YOUR FINGERS OUT OF THE RED ZONE".

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:50 am

I was over 20 min into a 'comment'(click ok or get dumped warning responded to) and went to google to check on spelling. Clicked on the wrong thing and got returned here!:mad::(:eek:

Will try again after my BP returns to near normal!

Dusty I be interested in knowing what you had to say. If you consider it ok, pm me with your comment number. TIA

That goes for any one else here that may have commented.

I intend to post my comment number after I have 'recreated' it.

algale · Post by **algale** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:50 pm

beeg wrote:Algale, there's one reply, but 81 views so for.

Fair enough. Hopefully some of those viewers will respond. Sounds like Dusty did, anyway.

algale · Post by **algale** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:58 pm

dusty wrote:

With all the hype that has been generated over this, the manufacturers are going to respond - with something that will satisfy whatever CPSC comes out with.

You can also bet that CPSC is not going to mandate "Sawstop" nor will they mandate "flesh detection". They will attempt to establish a requirement for something to be developed to "reduce serious injury".

I agree with your assessment of the situation entirely.

beeg · Post by **beeg** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:46 pm

JPG40504 wrote:I was over 20 min into a 'comment'(click ok or get dumped warning responded to) and went to google to check on spelling. Clicked on the wrong thing and got returned here!:mad::(:eek:

Create it in WORD, then copy and paste.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:58 pm

beeg wrote:Create it in WORD, then copy and paste.

That is not a bad idea but it is unnecessary.

You are warned that you are running out of time and given an opportunity to extend. I had to do it twice because I kept rewriting. Even when I finally posted, I was not satisfied with what I wrote.

Even then I may have ranted too much. All of the comments are subject to review and approval. Mine may have been censored - I have yet to see them on the site.

The comments are very interesting. I hope that every one takes the time to read a few of them. We wood workers definitely do not all think alike.

PS I just went make to the site to review more of the comments (155). I was surprised to find that the number of people commenting is so few. Please consider doing so. Read a few comments, you'll find a wide variety]Not commenting when given a chance like this is about like not voting in 2012. You might be sorry for your silence later.[/B]

beeg · Post by **beeg** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:25 pm

dusty wrote:That is not a bad idea but it is unnecessary.

For you it's unnecessary, but knot for jpg.