Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
1 Was the DFMEA prepared using the Chrysler,
Ford, and General Motors Potential Failure Mode
and Effects Analysis (FMEA) reference manual,
and applicable customer specific requirements?
Revision Date:
Page 3 of 128
A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
Prepared By:
Page 4 of 128
DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 5 of 128
DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 6 of 128
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
A. General
1 Does the design require:
a l New materials?
b l Special tooling?
Page 7 of 128
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
11 Have Special Characteristics been selected?
/
12 Is bill of material complete?
/
13 Are Special Characteristics properly documented?
B. Engineering Drawings
14 Are reference dimensions identified to minimize
inspection layout time?
15 Are sufficient control points and datum surfaces
identified to design functional gages?
16 Are tolerances compatible with accepted
manufacturing standards?
17 Can existing and available inspection technology
measure all design requirements?
18 Is the customer designated engineering change
management process used to manage
engineering changes?
Page 8 of 128
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
21 Have parts manufactured at minimum and
maximum specifications been tested as required?
Page 9 of 128
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
a lWill characteristics be checked in-house?
/
b l If checked in house, is test equipment
available?
c l If checked in house, are competent people
available to assure accurate testing?
31 Will outside laboratories be used?
/
a l Does the organization have a process in place
to assure laboratory competency such as
accreditation? NOTE: Competency needs to be
assured, regardless of the organization's
relationship with the laboratory.
32 Have the following material requirements been
considered:
a l Handling, including environmental aspects?
Revision Date
Page 10 of 128
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
Prepared By:
Page 11 of 128
SIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 12 of 128
SIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 13 of 128
SIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 14 of 128
SIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 15 of 128
SIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 16 of 128
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
1 Does the design require:
a l New materials?
/
b l Quick
change? /
c l Volume fluctuations?
/
d l Mistake proofing?
/
2 Have lists been prepared identifying (include all
suppliers)?:
a l New equipment?
/
b l New tooling?
/
c l New test equipment (including checking aids)?
Page 17 of 128
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
6 Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for
equipment and tooling?
7 Are setup instructions for new equipment and
tooling complete and understandable?
8 Will capable gages be available to run preliminary
process capability studies at the equipment
supplier's facility?
9 Will preliminary process capability studies be run
at the processing plant?
10 Have process characteristics that affect special
product characteristics been identified?
11 Were special product characteristics used in
determining acceptance criteria?
12 Does the manufacturing equipment have
sufficient capacity to handle forecasted production
and service volumes?
13 Is testing capacity sufficient to provide adequate
testing?
14 Has the measurement equipment been verified
and documented showing qualification for the
required scope of measurement and testing?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 18 of 128
TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 19 of 128
TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 20 of 128
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
1 Is customer assistance or approval required for
the development of the control plan?
2 Has the organization identified who will be the
quality liaison with the customer?
3 Has the organization identified who will be the
quality liaison with its suppliers?
4 Has the quality management system been
reviewed and approved per customer specific
requirements?
5
Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:
a l Control plan requirements?
/
b l Layout inspection?
/
c l Engineering performance testing?
/
d l Problem reaction and resolution analysis?
/
6 Is there a documented training program that:
a l Includes all employees?
/
b l Lists whose been trained?
/
c l Provides a training schedule?
/
7 Has training been completed for:
a l Statistical process control?
/
b l Capability studies?
/
Page 21 of 128
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
c l Problem solving?
/
d l Mistake proofing?
/
e l Reaction plans?
b l Available?
/
Page 22 of 128
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
c l Accessible? /
d l Approved?
/
e Dated and current?
l
/
14 Is there a procedure to implement, maintain, and
establish reaction plans for issues such as out of
control conditions based on statistical process
control?
15 Is there an identified problem solving process that
includes root cause analysis?
16 Are the latest drawings and specifications
available for the operator, in particular at the
points of the inspection?
a l Have engineering tests (dimensional, material,
appearance, and performance) been completed
and documented as required in accordance with
customer requirements?
17 Are the current forms/logs available for
appropriate personnel to record inspection
results?
18 Are the following available and placed at the
appropriate points of the operation?
a l Monitoring and measurement devices?
b l Gage instructions?
/
c l Reference samples?
/
d l Inspection logs? /
Page 23 of 128
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
19 Have provisions been made to certify and
calibrate gages and test equipment at a defined
frequency that is appropriate?
20 Have required measurement system capability
studies been:
a l Completed?
/
b l Accepted?
c l Sample size? /
Page 24 of 128
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
25 Is there a procedure to identify, segregate, and
control nonconforming products to prevent
shipment?
26 Are rework/repair procedures available to assure
conforming product?
27 Is there a procedure to requalify
repaired/reworked material?
28 Has a master sample, if required, been retained
as part of the part approval process?
29 Is there an appropriate lot traceability procedure?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 25 of 128
CT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 26 of 128
CT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 27 of 128
CT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 28 of 128
CT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 29 of 128
CT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 30 of 128
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
1 Have lean concepts been applied in considering
material flow?
2 Does the floor plan identify all required process
and inspection points?
3 Have clearly marked areas for all material, tools,
and equipment at each operation been
considered?
4 Has sufficient space been allocated for all
equipment?
5 Are process and inspection areas:
a l Of adequate size? /
b l Properly
lighted? /
6 Do inspection areas contain necessary equipment
and record storage?
7 Are there adequate:
a l Staging areas? /
b l Impound areas? /
Page 31 of 128
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
11 Have facilities been provided for final product
audit?
12 Are facilities adequate to control movement of
nonconforming incoming material?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 32 of 128
5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 33 of 128
5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 34 of 128
A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
1 Does the flow chart illustrate the entire process
from receiving through shipping, including outside
processes and services?
2 In the development of the process flow chart, was
the DFMEA used, if available, to identify specific
characteristics that may be critical?
3 Is the flow chart keyed to product and process
checks in the control plan and PFMEA?
4 Does the flow chart describe how the product will
move, i.e., roller conveyor, slide containers, etc.?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 35 of 128
CESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 36 of 128
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
1 Was the Process FMEA prepared by a cross
functional team? Has the team taken into
account all customer specific requirements,
including FMEA methodologies as shown in the
current edition of the FMEA?
2 Have all operations including subcontracted, or
outsourced processes and services been
considered?
3 Have all operations affecting customer
requirements including fit, function, durability,
governmental regulations and safety been
identified and listed sequentially?
4 Were similar part/process FMEA's considered?
Revision Date
Page 37 of 128
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
Prepared By:
Page 38 of 128
PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 39 of 128
PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 40 of 128
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
1 Was the control plan developed according to the
methodology described in Chapter 6 of this APQP
manual?
2 Have all the controls identified in the PFMEA
been included in the control plan?
3 Are all special product/process characteristics
included in the control plan?
4 Were DFMEA and PFMEA used to prepare the
control plan?
5 Are material specifications requiring inspection
identified?
6 Does the control plan address incoming
(material/components) through
processing/assembly including packaging?
7 Are engineering performance testing and
dimensional requirements identified?
8 Are gages and test equipment available as
required by the control plan?
9 If required, has the customer approved the control
plan?
10 Are the gage methodology and compatibility
appropriate to meet customer requirements?
10 Have measurement systems analysis been
completed in accordance with customer
requirements?
12 Are sample sizes based upon industry standards,
statistical sampling plan tables, or other statistical
process control methods or techniques?
Revision Date
Page 41 of 128
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
Prepared By:
Page 42 of 128
CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 43 of 128
CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 44 of 128
TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENT
Customer: CUSTOMER Date:
Feasibility Considerations
Our product quality planning team has considered the following questions.
The drawings and/or specifications provided have been used as a basis for analyzing the ability to meet all
specified requirements. All "no" answers are supported with attached comments identifying the organization's
concerns and/or proposed changes to enable the organization to meet the specified requirements.
YES NO CONSIDERATION
Is product adequately defined (application requirements, etc. to enable
feasibility evaluation?
Can Engineering Performance Specifications be met as written?
Can product be manufactured to tolerances specified on drawing?
Can product be manufactured with process capability that meet requirements?
Is there adequate capacity to produce product?
Does the design allow the use of efficient material handling techniques?
Can the product be manufactured within normal cost parameters? Abnormal cost
considerations may include:
- Costs for capital equipment?
- Costs for tooling?
- Alternative manufacturing methods?
Is statistical process control required on the product?
Is statistical process control presently used on similar products?
Where statistical process control is used on similar products:
- Are the processes in control and stable?
- Does process capability meet customer requirements?
Conclusion
Approval
2. CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL (If Required) APPROVED: YES / NO* DATE APPROVED
5. PROCESS MONITORING
QUANTITY
PROCESS MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PROCESS SHEETS
VISUAL AIDS
6. PACKAGING/SHIPPING QUANTITY
REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PACKAGING APPROVAL
SHIPPING TRIALS
7. Approvals
Date Remarks
Page 47 of 128
PROCESS / INSPECTION FLOWCHART
Legend:
Operation Transportation Inspection Delay Storage
Page 48 of 128
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
PART NUMBER: NUMBER DATE:
PART DESCRIPTION: ECL: ECL
NAME PREPARED BY:
FABRICATION
INSPECT
STORE
MOVE
PRODUCT AND
ITEM #
ITEM #
OPERATION PROCESS CONTROL
STEP DESCRIPTION CHARACTERISTICS METHODS
Page 49 of 128
Process Flow Diagram
Department
Page 50 of 128
CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX
Part Number Engineering Change Level Part Name
NUMBER ECL NAME
Page 51 of 128
DESIGN MATRIX -
Product Code / Description: Project #:
POTENTIAL CAUSES FUNCTION - DESIRED ATTRIBUTES (POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES)
PROCESS ABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL
FAILURE
UNITS
CATEGORY /
PERFORMANCE
APPEARANCE
CHARACTERISTICS
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Function
Severity
Occurrence
Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Design Design Recommended & Target
RPN
Severity
Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action Completion
Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Prevention Detection Date
Requirements
Page 53 of 128
POTENTIAL
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Subsystem (DESIGN FMEA) Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Item Responsibility
Detection
Severity
Occurrence
Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Design Design Recommended & Target
RPN
Severity
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action(s) Completion
Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Function Prevention Detection Date
Page 54 of 128
POTENTIAL
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Subsystem (DESIGN FMEA) Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Function
Severity
Occurrence
Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Design Design Recommended & Target
RPN
Severity
Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action Completion
Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Prevention Detection Date
Requirements
Page 55 of 128
POTENTIAL
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Subsystem (DESIGN FMEA) Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Item Responsibility
Detection
Severity
Occurrence
Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Design Design Recommended & Target
RPN
Severity
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action(s) Completion
Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Function Prevention Detection Date
Page 56 of 128
POTENTIAL
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Subsystem (DESIGN FMEA) Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Action Results
Current Detection
Classification
Occurrence
Item Responsibility
Detection
Severity
Occurrence
Potential Potential Potential Design Controls
Detection
Controls Recommended & Target
RPN
Severity
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
Prevention Action(s) Completion
Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Function Date
Cause Failure Mode
Page 57 of 128
Action Results
RPN
Page 58 of 128
POTENTIAL
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Subsystem (DESIGN FMEA) Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Completion Date
Action Results
Responsibility
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Item
Detection
Severity
Occurrence
Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Target
Design Design Recommended
RPN
Severity
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Effective
RPN
Controls Controls Action(s)
Mode of Failure of Failure Taken Date
Function Prevention Detection
Page 59 of 128
POTENTIAL
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA) Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
/ Function
Occurrence
Severity
Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Process Process Recommended & Target
Severity
RPN
Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action Completion
Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Prevention Detection Date
Requirements
Page 60 of 128
POTENTIAL
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA) Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Process Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Step Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Process Process Recommended & Target
Severity
RPN
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action Completion
Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Prevention Detection Date
Function
Page 61 of 128
POTENTIAL
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA) Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
/ Function
Occurrence
Severity
Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Process Process Recommended & Target
Severity
RPN
Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action Completion
Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Prevention Detection Date
Requirements
Page 62 of 128
POTENTIAL
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA) Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Process Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Step Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Process Process Recommended & Target
Severity
RPN
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action Completion
Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Prevention Detection Date
Function
Page 63 of 128
POTENTIAL
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA) Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Process Current Current Detection
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Step Potential Potential Potential Process Controls
Detection
Process Recommended & Target
Severity
RPN
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Action Completion
Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Prevention Date
Function Cause Failure Mode
Page 64 of 128
POTENTIAL FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA) Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Action Results
Responsibility
Classification
Process Current Current
Occurrence
Completion
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Step Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Target
Process Process Recommended
Severity
RPN
Date
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Effective
RPN
Controls Controls Action
Mode of Failure of Failure Taken Date
Function Prevention Detection
Page 65 of 128
POTENTIAL
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA) Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Process Requirements Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Step Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Process Process Recommended & Target
Severity
RPN
Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action Completion
ID Product Process Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Prevention Detection Date
Function
Page 66 of 128
POTENTIAL
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA) Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Process Requirements Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Step Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Process Process Recommended & Target
Severity
RPN
Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action Completion
ID Product Process Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Prevention Detection Date
Function
Page 67 of 128
POTENTIAL
System
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Subsystem (MACHINERY FMEA) FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Component Supplier Name ORGANIZATION Prepared by:
Program(s) / Plant(s) Key Date Date (Orig.)
Core Team: Date (Rev.)
C O Current D
S l Potential c Machinery e R. Responsibility Action Results
Machinery Potential Potential
e a Causes(s)/ c Controls t P. Recommended & Target S O D R.
Function / Failure Effect(s)
Mechanism(s) Action(s) Completion Actions
Requirements Mode of Failure v s u -Prevention e N. e c e P.
of Failure Date Taken
s r -Detection c v c t N.
Page 68 of 128
POTENTIAL
System
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Subsystem (MACHINERY FMEA) FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Component Supplier Name ORGANIZATION Prepared by:
Program(s) / Plant(s) Key Date Date (Orig.)
Core Team: Date (Rev.)
C O D
S l Potential c Current Current e R. Responsibility Action Results
Machinery Potential Potential
e a Causes(s)/ c Process Process t P. Recommended & Target S O D R.
Function / Failure Effect(s)
Mechanism(s) Controls Controls Action(s) Completion Actions
Requirements Mode of Failure v s u e N. e c e P.
of Failure Prevention Detection Date Taken
s r c v c t N.
Page 69 of 128
CONTROL PLAN
Prototype Pre-Launch Production
Control Plan Number Key Contact/Phone Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
FILE.XLS 555-555-5555 1/1/1996 1/1/1996
Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NUMBER ECL
Part Name/Description Organization/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NAME
Organization/Plant Organization Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
ORGANIZATION CODE
MACHINE, CHARACTERISTICS METHODS
PART/ PROCESS NAME/ SPECIAL
DEVICE REACTION
PROCESS OPERATION CHAR. PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/ SAMPLE
JIG, TOOLS CONTROL PLAN
NUMBER DESCRIPTION NO. PRODUCT PROCESS CLASS SPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT
FOR MFG. SIZE FREQ. METHOD
TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE
Page 70 of 128
CONTROL PLAN SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Prototype Pre-Launch Production
Control Plan Number Key Contact/Phone Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
FILE.XLS 555-555-5555 1/1/1996 1/1/1996
Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NUMBER ECL
Part Name/Description Organization/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NAME
Organization/Plant Organization Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
ORGANIZATION CODE
No. Description/Rationale Specification/Tolerance Class Illustration/Pictorial
Page 71 of 128
DATA POINT COORDINATES
Control Plan No. FILE.XLS
Page 72 of 128
Production Part Approval Page 73 of 128 Pages
March CFG-1003
2006
Production Part Approval Page 74 of 128 Pages
March CFG-1003
2006
Production Part Approval Page of Pages
March CFG-1004
2006
Production Part Approval Page of Pages
March CFG-1004
2006
Production Part Approval Page 77 of 128 Pages
March CFG-1005
2006
Production Part Approval Page 78 of 128 Pages
March CFG-1005
2006
APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORT
PART DRAWING APPLICATION
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER (VEHICLES) APPLICATION
PART BUYER E/C LEVEL DATE
NAME NAME CODE ECL
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING ADDRESS SUPPLIER / VENDOR
NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CITY STATE ZIP CODE CODE
REASON FOR PART SUBMISSION WARRANT SPECIAL SAMPLE RE-SUBMISSION OTHER
SUBMISSION PRE TEXTURE FIRST PRODUCTION SHIPMENT ENGINEERING CHANGE
APPEARANCE EVALUATION
AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER
ORGANIZATION SOURCING AND TEXTURE INFORMATION PRE-TEXTURE REPRESENTATIVE
EVALUATION SIGNATURE AND DATE
CORRECT AND
PROCEED
CORRECT AND
PROCEED
APPROVED TO
ETCH/TOOL/EDM
COLOR EVALUATION
METALLIC COLOR
COLOR TRISTIMULUS DATA MASTER MASTER MATERIAL MATERIAL HUE VALUE CHROMA GLOSS BRILLIANCE SHIPPING PART
SUFFIX DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC NUMBER DATE TYPE SOURCE RED YEL GRN BLU LIGHT DARK GRAY CLEAN HIGH LOW HIGH LOW SUFFIX DISPOSITION
COMMENTS
March CFG-1002
2006
ATTRIBUTE GAGE BIAS REPORT
ANALYTICAL METHOD - LOW LIMIT
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Date Performed
NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Upper Limit Lower Limit
ATTRIBUTE DATA
# XT a P'a After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked
1 0.000 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve
2 0.000
3 0.000
4 0.000
5 0.000
6 0.000
7 0.000
8 0.000
9 0.000
t Statistic
t = 31.3 IBI / R t0.025,19 = 2.09
=
=
Result
Page 80 of 128
Page 81 of 128
ATTRIBUTE GAGE BIAS REPORT
ANALYTICAL METHOD - HIGH LIMIT
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Date Performed
NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Upper Limit Lower Limit
ATTRIBUTE DATA
# XT a P'a After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked
1 0.025 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve
2 0.000
3 0.000
4 0.000
5 0.000
6 0.000
7 0.000
8 0.000
9 0.000
t Statistic
t = 31.3 IBI / R t0.025,19 = 2.09
=
=
Result
Page 82 of 128
Page 83 of 128
ATTRIBUTE GAGE BIAS REPORT
ANALYTICAL METHOD - GAGE PERFORMANCE CURVE
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Date Performed
NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Upper Limit Lower Limit
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
REMARKS
Signature
Title Date
Page 84 of 128
Page 85 of 128
Directions for Gage Performance Curve for Attribute Analytical Method Form
DATA TABLE
Reference
PART A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference Value Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Page 87 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORT
ATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
Risk Analysis
A * B Crosstabulation
B
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
A
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
B * C Crosstabulation
C
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
B
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
Page 88 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORT
ATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
A * C Crosstabulation
C
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
A
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
Kappa A B C
A -
B -
C -
DETERMINATION
AxB 0.75 or higher indicates good agreement
AxC Between 0.40 and 0.75 indicates some agreement
BxC Less then 0.40 indeicates poor agreement
A * REF Crosstabulation
REF
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
A
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
Page 89 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORT
ATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
B * REF Crosstabulation
REF
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
B
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
C * REF Crosstabulation
REF
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
C
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
A B C
Kappa
DETERMINATION
A x REF 0.75 or higher indicates good agreement
B x REF Between 0.40 and 0.75 indicates some agreement
C x REF Less then 0.40 indeicates poor agreement
Page 90 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORT
ATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
Notes:
(1) Appraiser agress with themself on all trials
(2) Appraiser agrees on all trials with the known standard
(3) All appraisers agreed within and between themselves
(4) All appraisers agreed within and between themselves and with the reference
(5) UCI and LCI are the upper and lower confidence internval bounds, respectively (Wilson score method)
Acceptance criteria: The calculated score of the appraiser falls between the confidence interval of the other.
EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION
Appraiser A vs. Appraiser B Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Alternative
Appraiser A vs. Appraiser C Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Alternative
Appraiser B vs. Appraiser C Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Alternative
Page 91 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORT
ATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
Second Analysis
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Measurement System False Alarm
Effectiveness Miss Rate
Decision Rate
Acceptable for the appraiser >90% <2% <5%
RESULTS SUMMARY
False Alarm
Appraiser Effectiveness Miss Rate
Rate
A
Final Analysis
Page 92 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
VARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower Upper
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or
discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Notes:
Page 93 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
VARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.
Page 94 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
VARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower Upper
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or
discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Notes:
Page 95 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
VARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.
Page 96 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
ANOVA METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower Upper
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Anova Table
Source DF SS MS F Sig
Appraiser
Parts
Appraiser-by-Part
Equipment
Total
* Significant at α = 0.05 level
Page 97 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
ANOVA METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower Upper
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Standard
% Total Variation % Contribution
Anova Report Deviation (σ)
Repeatability (EV)
Reproducibility (AV)
Appraiser by Part (INT)
GRR
Part-to-Part (PV)
Note:
Tolerance = Total variation (TV) =
Number of distinct data categories (ndc) =
Page 98 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower Upper
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Note: The REFERENCE VALUE can be substituted for PART AVE to generate graphs indicating true bias.
Page 99 of 128
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower Upper
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
10
8
Appraiser A
Average
Appraiser B
6
Appraiser C
4 Upper Spec
Lower Spec
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part Number
Analysis:
10
8
Appraiser A
Range
6 Appraiser B
Appraiser C
4 Rucl
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part Number
Analysis:
10
8
Average
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Appr A Appr B Appr C
Analysis:
10.000
8.000
Average
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Appr A Appr B Appr C
Analysis:
Run Chart
12
10
8
Value
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part
Analysis:
Scatter Plot
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Part 2
Part 3
Part 5
Part 1
Part 4
Scatter Plot
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Part 6
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 7
Analysis:
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Analysis:
Error Chart
12
10
0
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Error Chart
12
10
0
Part 6
Part 8
Part 10
Part 7
Part 9
Analysis:
-0.90
-0.80
-0.70
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
-0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
-1.00
-0.90
-0.80
-0.70
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
-0.90
-0.80
-0.70
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Analysis:
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 Appr A
Appr B
0.5 Appr C
X=Y line
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Analysis:
Comparison XY Plot
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Appr B
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Appr A
Comparison XY Plot
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Appr C
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Appr A
Appr C
0.5 GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
0.4
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
0.3 NUMBER
Part Name 0.2 Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
0.1
Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
0 Lower Upper
0 0.1
Characteristic Classification 0.2 0.3
Trials 0.4 Parts 0.5 0.6 0.7
Appraisers 0.8Performed
Date 0.9 1
Appr A
Comparison XY Plot
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Appr C
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Appr B
Analysis:
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
PART
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NUMBER
R 1
E
2
A
D
3
I
N
4
G
S 5
SUM
SUM
x
NUM
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R ) PART NO. CHART NO.
MEASUREMENT EVALUATION NUMBER
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) SPECIFICATION LIMITS
NAME
APPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS
HIGH-
R
LOW
σm = SQRT ( σe + σA )
Thus the number of distinct categories that can be reliably distinguished by these measurements is:
ndc = 1.41 x σp / σm =
This is the number of non-overlapping 97% confidence intervals that will span the range of product variation. (A 97% confidence
interval centered on a single measurement would contain the actual product value that is represented by that measurement 97%
of the time.)
GAGE R STUDY PART NO. CHART NO.
MEASUREMENT EVALUATION NUMBER
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) ZERO EQUALS
NAME
APPRAISER MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE UPPER SPECIFICATION LOWER SPECIFICATION
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RANGES (R CHART)
r= UCL = LCL =
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
READING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
VALUE
HIGH-
R n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LOW
GAGE R ANALYSIS
Data in control? % Repeatability =
This method CANNOT be used for final gage acceptance without other complete and detailed MSA methods.
Bulk Materials Requirements Checklist Project:
Required / Primary Responsibility Comments / Approved
Target Date Customer Supplier Conditions by / date
Product Design and Development Verification
Design Matrix
Design FMEA
Special Product Characteristics
Design Records
Prototype Control Plan
Appearance Approval Report
Master Samples
Test Results
Dimensional Results
Checking Aids
Engineering Approval
Process Design and Development Verification
Complete this form and e-mail to your customer organization whenever customer notification is required by
the PPAP Manual in Table 3.1. Your customer will respond back with an acknowledgement and may
request additional change clarification or PPAP submission requirements.
Customer Part Number: NUMBER Engineering Revision Level: ECL Dated: ECL DATE
Purchase Order Number: Safety and/or Government Regulation:
Application: APPLICATION
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION
DECLARATION:
I hereby certify that representative samples will be manufactured using the revised product and/or process
and verified, where appropriate, for dimensional change, appearance change, physical property change,
functionally for performance and durability. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is
on file and available for customer review.
Explanation/Comments:
NAME: TITLE:
E-MAIL: DATE:
NOTE: Please submit this notification at least 6 weeks prior to the planned change implementation!
Contact your customer to determine if this form is available in an electronic format or if this form should be faxed.
March THE-1002
2006
Truck Industry Part Submission Warrant
Part Name NAME Customer Part Number NUMBER Rev.
If applicable
Tool PO Number Engineering Drawing Change Level ECL Dated
ADDRESS
Street Address Customer Contact
Note: Does this part contain any restricted or reportable substances? Yes No
Are plastic parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes? Yes No
DECLARATION
I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts and have been made to the applicable customer
drawings and specifications and are made from specified materials on regular production tooling with no operations other than the regular
production process. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for review.
EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
Title E-Mail
Print Name
March THE-1001
2006
Part Submission Warrant
Part Name NAME Cust. Part Number NUMBER
Shown on Drawing Number Org. Part Number
Safety and/or Government Regulation Yes No Purchase Order No. Weight (kg)
ADDRESS
Street Address Buyer/Buyer Code
MATERIALS REPORTING
Are polymeric parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes? Yes No n/a
REASON FOR SUBMISSION (Check at least one)
Initial submission Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Change in Part Processing
Correction of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional Location
Tooling Inactive > than 1 year Other - please specify
SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for dimensional measurements
material and functional tests
appearance criteriastatistical process package
Yes
These results meet all design record requirements: NO (If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
DECLARATION
I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts, which were made by a process that meets all
Production Part Approval Process Manual 4th Edition Requirements. I further affirm that these samples were produced at the production
rate of ____/____ hours. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for your review. I have noted
any deviation from this declaration below.
EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
March CFG-1001
2006