Clause 4.4.1.2 Product safety

Hi all

I am not native to English. I faced with a problem about the concept of the title of clause 4.4.1.2 “product safety” in IATF 16949. I have seen the term “safety part” in PSA documents such as Q63 1000 many times.

So, my question is that:

What is the right meaning of “product safety”? Does it mean “safety part” or “safety of product”?

Thanks all for your knowledge sharing.

 

In the definitions on page 14: "standards relating to the design and manufacturing of products to ensure they do not represent harm or hazard to customers"

Usually, the OEM tells us the part is Safety related. Brake systems and components are Safety because the customer may be injured if the brakes fail. The drawing will have an inverted delta.

 

Hello johnnymo77, i hope you can help me. I have a concern, if my company is a paint supplier (We don´t design and don´t manufactur the product) the customer design and manufactur the product and send to us to paint and we send to them back, do we sould have a product safety procedure or related documentation?

Thanks for your support.

 

I know very little about painting, so it's only my opinion...

I can imagine a painted part getting hot and creating bad fumes.

I think you should ask your customer. They should know and tell you.

They should have specified the paint and painting process with safety in mind. That may be why they have not told you.

 

Hello all, i'm new in the forum

I'm not native speaker english

Currently i'm working in a company that recently has started the certification process for IATF. My current position is in engineering department.

About this specific clause, we were recommended by our consultancy company to make a procedure for the compliance of this point, in which we include the activities that is required by IATF 16949 for 'product safety'.

We are a manufacturing company and we don't make any research, development or design. The parts we produce mostly hasn't safety characteristics, and normally our customers focuses more in cosmetics/assembly concerns.

So, speaking about the 4.4.1.2 in which way are we bounded in the meeting of this point and how we could redact the procedure that our consultancy company has recommende to make?

Thank you to all for your wisdom sharing and happy holidays.

Manuel.

 

@ Manuel Rojas
Hi, Nice to meet you. May I ask which product does your factory produce?

The company where I am working is producing LED which used in the rear lighting and interior lighting. (i.e. We are just in the automobile supplier chain and our customers are no OEMs, just their 1st tier suppliers). And since we got a corporate HQ overseas, we don`t do the product R&D. What is more, we have ALREADY been IATF16949 certified.

Regarding 4.4.1.2, I have asked our QMS engineer about it just wanting to know how our company manages to conform to this specific sub-clause. (In my daily work, I failed to find anything relevant to it) And I got a quite simple answer which is LED is not deemed as being safety related. And there is no statement about the exclusion or inapplicability of this sub-clause. Nevertheless, during the audit, no concern has been raised about it. Maybe this is how it works.

Something wrong I feel about it is that though LED is not like the brake, or something alike, when it is used in the rear lighting, functioning as the indicator, it should probably be safety related. (When it failed, rear-end collision may happen) In addition, when the led is short circuited due to product failure, there is a possibility that would cause a fire.(Actually I heard it in ths news).

Maybe since we are just the supplier of the 1st tier suppliers to the OEMs, the thing I am worrying about (short circuited LEDs, nonfunction rear lighting) is just the responsibility of the actual automobile lighting suppliers.

Hoping someone can give me a clear explanation about it. Thanks.

 

Hello judegu, nice to meet you and thanks for your answer.

In the company I work, we make plastic injection-related parts not focusing on an specific kind of parts or car system. Something i forgot to tell is that currently we are 2nd (or 3rd in some products) tier supplier, and something i agree with you is that this subclause don't tell us about exclusion or inapplicability, and don't tell us about in which way are the parts a "safety part" o "unsafety part".

Hoping someone else can share his/her knowledge and experience. Thanks!

 

Yes, we are in the similar situation regarding the position of our each companies in the automotive supplier chain. Maybe due to the distance from the OEMs, the IATF16949 would be not so strict on the suppliers like us. Sure this is just my wild guess.