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 DyerMark 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 tex t 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 prop o sed change:

Modify paragraph 9.2.2 to read:

9.2.2 In warning sta tements, 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 concern ed 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 b e lieve 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 address es strap loosening. It was suggested that the comment could be clarifi ed 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 call ed out in paragraphs in 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 also have a strap slippage requirement and hewould propose balloting a similar wording change to paragaph 6.2.2.

Everyone was satisfied with the recommendation.

T h erefore

, Joel will submit to ballot the following proposed change s :

Modify paragraph s 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 mar ket 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

test ing fasteners already in use on carriers rated at 20 to 45 lbs. The a bility 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 c arrier 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 wa s necessary.

Comment #4Joel 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 product s tha t the concern was based on, it was determined that the portion of the carrier that provideds the h e ad 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 "sleepi ng 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, b ut 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

w ere presented.

The meeting was adjourned.