U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

LOG OF TELEPHONE CALL

SUBJECT: ASTM F15.21 Soft Infant and Toddler Carrier Subcommittee Virtual 

Meeting

DATE OF TELEPHONE CALL: 8/12/13

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: VJA

DATE OF LOG ENTRY: 8/12/13

LOCATION: Phone conference

CPSC PARTICIPANT(S): 

Vince Amodeo

Patricia Edwards

Mary House

Samantha Li

NON-CPSC PARTICIPANT(S): 

Joel Taft

Lisa Trofe

Karen Wilson

Don Huber

Rochelle Price

Ben Gross

Nancy Cowles

Joe Daniels

Piyush Shah

Sandy Russel

Tom Dyer
Mark Fellin

Clair Arsenault

Susan (Evenflo)

Steven Steigel

SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE CALL: Meeting to discuss comments submitted by 

ASTM during the NPR comment process on SITC.

Joel Taft brought the meeting to order.

Joel presented agenda to discuss 4 ballot comments.

Comment #1 

In ASTM F2236-13, the text height requirements for the instructions in

Section 9.2.2 need to be modified to match that of Section 8.3.1, otherwise it 

would require every letter of text be at least 0.1” high, instead of only the upper 

case letters.

None of the attendees had any concern with this recommended change. 

Therefore Joel will send to ballot the following proposed change:

Modify paragraph 9.2.2 to read:

9.2.2 In warning statements, the symbol “(triangle warning symbol)" and the word 

WARNING shall be at least 0.2 in. (5 mm) high. The remainder of the text shall be 

in characters whose upper case is at least 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) high.

Comment #2

Joel commented that he is aware of one manufacturer that was concerned their 

product may produce a technical failure during the fastener strength test because 

when they tested their product, they had a strap slip by more than 1-inch, but it in 

doing so, it tightened instead of loosening. Joel stated that he did not believe the 

intent of the strap slip requirement was to make such a situation a failure. The 

group discussed how to ensure that the requirement only addresses strap 

loosening. It was suggested that the comment could be clarified to state that 

"adjustable elements in the strap shall not slip, in a manner that loosens the 

strap, by more than 1 inch" instead of simply changing the word "slip" to 

"loosen".

Joel stated that the support / shoulder dynamic and static load tests called out in 

paragraphs in 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 also have a strap slippage requirement and he 
would propose balloting a similar wording change to paragaph 6.2.2.

Everyone was satisfied with the recommendation.

Therefore, Joel will submit to ballot the following proposed changes:

Modify paragraphs 6.2.2, 6.4.1, and 6.4.2 to read:

6.2.2 Support/Shoulder Strap Slippage—Adjustable sections of support/shoulder 

straps shall not slip, in a manner that loosens the strap, more than 1 in. (25 mm) 

per strap from their original adjusted position after dynamic and static load 

testing is performed in accordance with 7.2.1 and 7.2.2, respectively.

6.4.1 Each unique fastener, except for leg opening adjustment fasteners as tested 

per 6.4.2, shall not break or disengage, and adjustable elements in straps shall 

not slip, in a manner that loosens the strap, more than 1 in. (2.5 cm) when tested 

in accordance with 7.7.1 and 7.7.2.

6.4.2 Each unique fastener whose primary purpose is to adjust the size of the leg 

opening shall not break or disengage, and adjustable elements in straps shall not 

slip, in a manner that loosens the strap, more than 1 in. (2.5 cm) when tested in 

accordance with 7.7.1 and 7.7.3.

Comment #3

Joel commented that some manufacturers were concerned that the 80 lb tensile 

test fastener load would be too severe for carriers that were rated below 45 lb. He 

suggested a sliding scale that would reduce to 60 lbs for a carrier rated at 25 lb.

Vince Amodeo discussed data from staff testing of 14 carriers on the market 

stating that almost all the fasteners tested met the 80 lb requirement. Some of 

the fasteners on recalled products failed at 22 to 55 lbs, so testing these carriers 

to 60 lbs would not provide much of a safety factor. The 80 lb load was based on 

testing fasteners already in use on carriers rated at 20 to 45 lbs. The ability of 

fastener to meet load was not a function of the fastener size but more of the 

qaulity of the material (usually plastic) used.

Additionally, one caller indicated that while a carrier may be rated at 25 lbs, the 

parent may carry a heavier child in the carrier.

Joel stated that he believed the existing requirement was based on sound testing.

Based on the discussion, the group decided that no change to the original 

requirement was necessary. 

Comment #4
Joel commented that some carriers have head support fasteners that are not load 

bearing and should be added to the list of those fasteners exempt from load 

testing. After the group discussed the configuration of the products that the 

concern was based on, it was determined that the portion of the carrier that 

provideds the head support in question is known as a "sleeping hood". As such, 

the group decided that the current requirement to exempt "hoods" would be 

changed to "sleeping hoods". 

Therefore Joel will submit to ballot the following change:

In Section 6.4, change the current note to read:

NOTE 1—The requirements in 6.4 only apply to load bearing fasteners. Fasteners 

intended to retain items such as, but not limited to, sleeping hoods, bibs and toy 

rings, are exempt from these requirements.

Joel asked if there was any other comments or new business to discuss. None 

were presented.

The meeting was adjourned.