GM Cust. Specific Reqt's. More than one version?


Randy Lefferts

We are currently certified to TS 1st Edition. We are preparing for TS 2002 certification in October.

My question is, are there different versions of Customer Specific Requirements that are used for a specific version of TS?

General Motors TS requirements were dated April 1999 and have been updated with the September 2002 issue.

I would think that if you are using the April 1999 requirements and there is an update (September 2002), then you would update your procedures/etc using the newly updated standard.

We had "upgraded" the standard in house to the September 2002 version and had been working to that. We were placed on CS2 and according to the newly updated requirement, we did not need to notify our registrar (Since they had removed that requirement and added the NBH requirement.) However, someone insisted that we notify our CB and when doing so, our CB informed me that there were 2 sets of requirements, one for TS 1st edition, 1 for TS 2nd edition.

I have not found anything that specifically states that "this" version is used for TS1 and "that" version is used for TS2. Is there something out there that I am missing? To me, they updated their requirements, so I updated them internally, much like they update a GP on occasion. I can't work to the obsolete GP, so I update it to the current one, much like I did with the Customer Specific Requirements.

Thanks for any help on this!
Last edited by a moderator:

Al Dyer


Something sounds fishy, though not on your part. I'm sure you will have further responses but I would like to do some investigation. I really don't think that any body would require comformance to two differing sets of requirements.:bigwave:


From reading the Sept. 2002 version, it appears that it applies to TS 16949: 2002, but I also cannot find anywhere that is explicitly stated to apply only to the 2002 revision. The IAOB website ( only shows the 2002 requirements, not the 1999. Neither the copy of 4/99 I have or 9/02 show a document number, revision, record of approval, etc. – so it is impossible to determine if 9/02 is a revision to 4/99 or a new document. I also can’t find 4/99 on the website. It all seems to indicate 4/99 is obsolete. Seems like rather poor document control on GM’s part.

The burden of proof that something is a true nonconformance is on your registrar. Make them show you documented evidence from GM that state you may not apply the 9/02 revision to TS 16949: 1999. It could be in a guideline or interpretation somewhere, but I can’t find it on any of the official publication sites.


Randy Lefferts

TS Requirements

Pancreas - That is exactly my reasoning as well. Why would I have to report CS2 whereas you only have to report NBH. One would think that GM would want ALL their suppliers to operate to the same guidelines. The only thing that makes me think otherwise is that DaimlerChrysler has different versions of their requirements,
DC Requirements TS 16949 1st Edition,
DC Requirements TS 16949 2nd Edition, and
DC Requirements TS 16949 Semi Conductor Commodity.

I haven't compared them yet to see the differences, but that is a different swamp to drain.
Thanks for your response and looking forward to anything you may discover.

Tom - The AIAG also lists the 2002 requirements, I did not see the 1999 version. However, I browsed over to GM Supplypower and located both versions doing a search there. As you said though, there is nothing to determine whether 2002 is a revision of 1999 or an entirely new document.

Thanks again :)


Well, I decided to devote the time to searching through the library at Supplypower. I got lucky as the first set of folders I hit contained what I was looking for. If you have a GM Supplypower User ID and password you can access these links:
GM Customer Specific Requirements TS 16949 1st Edition
GM Customer Specific Requirements TS 16949 2nd Edition

It is the version that you mentioned Tom, the April 1999 version, that is GM's TS 1st Edition Requirement.

Still doesn't make any sense to me.......but at least I (we) know.

Thanks guys!
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom