Can someone tell me where in the rules it says that a registrar must issue NC on a issue they found even if the issue has been addressed recently by an internal audit and there corrective action in place? This makes no since to me for I don't see the value in it. Look at it next visit and see if our finding and corrective action was effective. We are currently going through our recert and this was just brought up. Auditor says it is in the rules. I did not find it but I have not had a lot of time to look. Thanks for your help.

Can someone tell me where in the rules it says that a registrar must issue NC on a issue they found even if the issue has been addressed recently by an internal audit and there corrective action in place? This makes no since to me for I don't see the value in it. Look at it next visit and see if our finding and corrective action was effective. We are currently going through our recert and this was just brought up. Auditor says it is in the rules. I did not find it but I have not had a lot of time to look. Thanks for your help.The IATF Rules document is not THAT prescriptive. However, we have had a number of discussions along this line in the recent past:

External Audit CAR when Internal Audit CAR is in process? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=21059)

Internal Audits save you from Non-Conformances on external audits? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=18836)

Thank you for the links. They helped a lot.

My experience of the TS auditor qualification course is now somewhat dated. I do remember, though, a lot of pressure on that course to record every finding as a non-conformity. The trainers were critical of stuff recorded as opportunities for improvement or observations.
Perhaps your auditor has experienced similar pressure.
Maybe a current auditor could provide some feedback on the policy now being promoted.

Or, just maybe, the finding was possibly a little bit valid?:notme:

You can't get ISO/TS 16949 certification without being 100% compliant. See attachment compliments of Sidney.

Thanks for posting the latest SI log. The thing about being 100% compliant is scary. That could be understood that ALL the internally written NC's would have to be resolved before the CB could recommend the organization for re-certification.

I personally feel that the expectation of the company being "perfect" in order to be certifiable and maintain certification is unrealistic.

As I understand it 100% compliant means that all NC's are either closed or 100% resolved
100% resolved means the following :
· Containment of the condition to prevent risk to the customer
· A documented evidence such as action plan, instructions,
records to demonstrate the elimination of the non conformity
condition, including assigned responsibilities or verification
follow-up visit
· This must have been achieved within 90 days of the end of the site audit.
This of course is limited to the normal sampling condition.
The rules do not refer to internal NC's, if they are found independently then the question would be if the corrective actions performed are in fact effective.

Thanks for posting the latest SI log. The thing about being 100% compliant is scary. That could be understood that ALL the internally written NC's would have to be resolved before the CB could recommend the organization for re-certification.

I personally feel that the expectation of the company being "perfect" in order to be certifiable and maintain certification is unrealistic.


I agree. I would only expect to see their CA process is effective in dealing with internal issues as they arise.