What tier number fits in a company producing paper labels stuck on automotive parts?

[qualprod]

Hi everyone
What tier number fits in a company producing paper labels stuck in automotive parts?
And What mandates? Iatf rules or customer rules?
Thanks

 

[Marc]

What tier are you selling to?
Who do you ship to?
Who do you invoice?

I assume you are selling to a tier 1 which is making parts and/or assemblies to sell to GM or whatever company/OEM. That would make you a tier 2. You are 1 tier down from the tier of the company you are selling to.

DISCLAIMER: I have no idea where it is defined this way. It's just the way I have understood it for many years.

 

[qualprod]

Thanks Marc
Yes , this company sells, ships and invoices to a tier 1 company.
So is a tier 2, on this case, Is there a requirement to be certified to Iatf 16949 or just 9001?
The requirement of the standard compliance is requested by iatf or the customer?

 

[Johnny Quality]

qualprod,

The requirement to be certified to any standard will be dictated by your customer. In the case of "paper labels stuck in automotive parts" I do not believe that scope would be valid for IATF 16949.

 

[Marc]

I don't now what the current requirements are, especially with IATF. I'm pretty sure @Howard Atkins can if he's listening.

In the case of "paper labels stuck in automotive parts" I do not believe that scope would be valid for IATF 16949.

I think this is probably correct.

My experience some years back was with several small companies whose customers asked them to do TS 16949 in the early days of TS 16949. They were all supplying tier 1 companies, with a couple also supplying some tier 2's. They had contacted me about helping them implement TS 16949. My first advice to each was to propose ISO 9001 to their customer based upon the cost and burden of TS 16949 registration. In each case their customers agreed that they would accept ISO 9001 registration.

Again, however, a DISCLAIMER: This was a number of years ago in the early days of TS 16949. I do not know what the actual rules are today with IATF 16949.

 

[Howard Atkins]

The latest Sanctioned interpretations to the rules say
“Customer-specified production parts” shall be understood as parts that are an integral part of a
vehicle. The only customer-specified parts that do not meet this requirement but are to be included
are the following: fire extinguisher, car jacks, and floor mats, owner’s manuals, and warning triangles
and reflective vest."
Rationale for change:
Same as the warning triangles, most national regulation / standards require reflective vest for the vehicle.

As I understand it a label is an integral part of a vehicle.
Customer rules always trump standards.
Has your customer asked for you to e certified to IATF?
As Mark says the tier is only your place in the supply chain

 

[qualprod]

The latest Sanctioned interpretations to the rules say
“Customer-specified production parts” shall be understood as parts that are an integral part of a
vehicle. The only customer-specified parts that do not meet this requirement but are to be included
are the following: fire extinguisher, car jacks, and floor mats, owner’s manuals, and warning triangles
and reflective vest."
Rationale for change:
Same as the warning triangles, most national regulation / standards require reflective vest for the vehicle.

As I understand it a label is an integral part of a vehicle.
Customer rules always trump standards.
Has your customer asked for you to e certified to IATF?
As Mark says the tier is only your place in the supply chain

Thanks Howard
The labels are stuck in safety harness.
If not required by iatf, customer could obligate a supplier to be in compliance?
Even if not really needed, and useful.
Thanks

 

[UncleFester]

Your customer could also be directed to use your organisation to supply them by their customer - as described in 8.4.1.3.

Also consider the requirements of 8.4.2.3 and its S.I. - in that your customer could select you as their supplier and only expect your QMS to be certified to ISO9001, depending on their risk-based model.