Document 2Rv23jx4dBYVJ705EonmqvBar

`he Office of Standards Enforcement (OSE) of the NHTSA has initiated a compliance evaluation program that created a commercial revolution in the assess ment of Quality Control activity by suppliers. This program enforces the work of the Office of Crash Avoidance (OCA) which must follow the Congressional mandate to issue minimum safety standards. Many persons not directly involved ir. ~ev vehicle safety standards are unaware that the OCA/OSE interpretation of "'.return" would invalidate the use of many AQL (acceptable quality level) *~T.-_ng plans, e.g., MIL-SID 105. Most sampling plans had been used through'.'i. ;~e automotive Industry to establish nominal performance levels with per- deviations. These sampling plan results were understood, accepted t*. '...reed upon when negotiated by supplier and customer in commercial contracts. * ITSA determined, in the case of safety-related products, to not accept * . _'.j techniques as proof of compliance to a minimum standard unless there *!'. : .Jf icient overdesign incorporated in the acceptance values to assure 100Z -.capliance. The equipment manufacturers were noc at first aware of the compliance eonsecrceJ when the Industry "nominal" design value became che NHTSA "minimum" i. - essentially making 30Z of the old product noncomplying. The Director ** *e Office of Standards Enforcement, Francis Armstrong, presented a paper -:.i._ed "The Issuea of Complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards s ^ther Requirements" in January 1969. See Appendix 2 for excerpt. This . .r has a very clear Illustration [its Fig. 7] of the significance of che -, the suppliers had to make in their designs to assure compliance if . design sampling plans were employed for manufacturing control. The -- paper should be a parr of che technical reference material in any design rttent for vehicle equipment suppliers or'vehide manufacturers of products 006003 PRODUCED BY FORD