IATF Appeals on ISO/TS16949 Rules - 4th Ed. - Removal of Site Extensions

[Nikonangel]

Did anyone ever submit an appeal on the new rules - ISO/TS16949 regarding removal of site extensions, and consequent requirement for a separate Stage 2 audit?
We've submitted one to our registrar but got denied. We wanted to take it to the next level as we feel that our buildings have always been part of 1 site (the registrar just claimed that 1 is an extension because of the 2 buildings although there never was a declared extension on scope of certificate). The 2 buildings are part of 1 process flow, and if we put a tunnel between the 2 structures then we will not be covered by this change in the rules, which we find totally unreasonable.
Not sure how to file an IATF appeal, does anyone know the procedure?

Thanks very much for the help!!!

 

[Helmut Jilling]

It probably is totally unreasonable in many situations, but it does not some that IATF cares about that. they made the rule to catch some shady players who were cheating. So, what you said your CB told you sounds accurate. These are IATF Rules, not CB rules.

Two buildings doing manufacturing fits the bill. The art of the rule that makes no sense to me is the requirement for a second audit team. Even under previous rules, the Corporate Scheme was usually carried out by the same team for continuity, although you might have to short-cycle the expiration date to meet the 3 year cycle rule.

If you can make the two building be one building, that might eliminate this issue for you. Otherwise, your CB can tell you the process for how to appeal to IAOB or IATF.

 

[msoules]

Did you go through the appeals process? How did it work for you? We are in the same boat, three adjacent buildings under one management system.