SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Part Number: Change Level:

Part Name: Submission Level: Level 3

Requirement

1 Design Records

2 Engineering Change Documents

3 Customer Engineering Approval

4 Design FMEA

5 Process Flow Diagram

6 Process FMEA

7 Dimensional Results

8 Material Test Results

9 Initial Process study

10 Measurement System Analysis

11 Qualified Laboratory Documen

12 Control plan

13 Part Submission Warrant

14 Appearance Approval Report

15 Bulk Material Requirements

16 Sample product

17 Master Sample RETAINED

18 Checking Aids RETAINED

19 Records C- Customer specific

[ * ]- Applicable [ ] - Not Applicable
 A-4 PRODUCT / PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. :

Person Due
Question Yes No Comment/Action Required
Responsible Date
Is the assistance of the customer's quality assurance or
1 product engineering activity needed to develop or concur to
the control plan?
Has the supplier identified who will be the quality liaison with
2
the customer?
Has the supplier identified who will be the quality liaison with
its suppliers?

Has the quality system been reviewed using the Chrysler,

4
Ford, and General Motors Quality system Assessment?
Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:
5 Control pan requirements?
6 Layout Inspection?
7 Engineering Performance testing?
8 Problem resolution analysis?
Is there a documented training program that:
9 Includes all employees?
10 Lists whose been trained?
11 Provides a training schedule?
Has training been completed for:
12 Statistical process control?
13 Capability studies?
14 Problem solving?
15 Mistake proofing?
16 Other topics as identified
Is each operation provided with process instructions that are
17
keyed to the control plan?
Are standard operator instructions available at each
18
operation?
Were operator/team leaders involved in developing standard
19
operator instructions?
Do inspection instructions include

Revision Date : Prepared by: .

RNS
 A-4 PRODUCT / PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. :

Person Due
Question Yes No Comment/Action Required
Responsible Date
20 Easily understood engineering performance specifications?
21 Test frequencies?
22 Sample sizes?
23 Reaction plans?
24 Documentations?
Are visual aids:
25 Easily understood?
26 Available
27 Accessible?
28 Approved?
29 Dated and Current?
Is there a procedure to implement, maintain, and establish
30
reaction plans for statistical control charts?
31 Is there an effective root cause analysis stem in place?
Have provisions been made to place the latest drawings and
32
specifications at the point of inspection?
Are forms/logs available for appropriate personnel to record
33
inspection results?
Have provisions been made to place the following at the monitored operation:
34 Inspection gages?
35 Gage instructions?
36 Reference samples?
37 Inspection logs?
Have provisions been made to certify and routinely calibrate
38
gages and test equipment?
Have required measurement system capability studies been :
39 Completed?
40 Acceptable?
Are layout inspection equipment and facilities adequate to
41 provide initial and ongoing layout of all details and
components?

Revision Date : Prepared by: .

RNS
 A-4 PRODUCT / PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. :

Person Due
Question Yes No Comment/Action Required
Responsible Date
Is there aprocedure for controlling incoming products that identifies:
42 Characteristics to be inspected?
43 Frequency of inspection?
44 Sample sizes?
45 Designated location for approved product?
46 Disposition of nonconforming products?
Is there a procedure to identify, segregate and control
47
nonconforming products to prevent shipment?
48 Are rework/repair procedures available?
49 Is there a procedure to requalify repaired/reworked material?
50 Is there an appropriate Lot Traceability System?
Are periodic audits of outgoing products planned and
51
implemented?
Are periodic surveys of the quality system planned and
52
implemented?
53 Has the customer approved and packaging specification?

Revision Date : Prepared by: .

RNS
 ADVANCE PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING SUMMARY
Part # : Part Name: Change # : Date :
CFT: Volume / annum: Rev # : -00-

1-Mar 7-Mar 13-Mar 19-Mar 25-Mar 31-Mar 6-Apr 12-Apr 18-Apr 24-Apr 30-Apr 6-May 12-May 18-May 24-May 30-May
Activity Resp
Study Dwg & Spec

Technical Review

TFC

Supplier Identificatin - C/s

Supplier Identificatin - M/c

Prelaunch Doc - C/s

Prelaunch Doc - M/c

Tooling Design & Procurement

Gage Design & Procurement

Standard Tool Procurement

Pattern Making

Sample Castings

Sample Castings Evaluation

Trial Machining

Review Prelaunch Doc

Casting PPAP Lot

PPAP Lot Evaluation

Machining PPAP Lot

PPAP Lot Evaluation

Production Documents - Machining

Packaging Evaluation

PSW

Sl # Activity Responsibility Start date End date Start End Days Data for Chart

1 Study Dwg & Spec 0 0 0 Study Dwg & Spec

2 Technical Review 0 0 0 Technical Review

3 TFC 0 0 0 TFC
4 Supplier Identificatin - C/s 0 0 0 Supplier Identificatin - C/s
5 Supplier Identificatin - M/c 0 0 0 Supplier Identificatin - M/c

6 Prelaunch Doc - C/s 0 0 0 Prelaunch Doc - C/s

7 Prelaunch Doc - M/c 0 0 0 Prelaunch Doc - M/c

8 Tooling Design & Procurement 0 0 0 Tooling Design & Procurement

9 Gage Design & Procurement 0 0 0 Gage Design & Procurement

10 Standard Tool Procurement 0 0 0 Standard Tool Procurement

11 Pattern Making 0 0 0 Pattern Making

12 Sample Castings 0 0 0 Sample Castings

13 Sample Castings Evaluation 0 0 0 Sample Castings Evaluation

14 Trial Machining 0 0 0 Trial Machining

15 Review Prelaunch Doc 0 0 0 Review Prelaunch Doc

17 Casting PPAP Lot 0 0 0 Casting PPAP Lot

18 PPAP Lot Evaluation 0 0 0 PPAP Lot Evaluation

19 Machining PPAP Lot 0 0 0 Machining PPAP Lot

20 PPAP Lot Evaluation 0 0 0 PPAP Lot Evaluation
16 Production Documents - Machining 0 0 0 Production Documents - Machining

21 Packaging Evaluation 0 0 0 Packaging Evaluation

23 PSW 0 0 0 PSW

24 QPSSO 0 0 0 QPSSO

Compiled By: Dated : 01/30/2022

RNS
 A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. :

Person Due
Question Yes No Comment/Action Required
Responsible Date
Has tool and equipment design provided for :
1 Flexible system, e.g., cell mfg ?
2 Quick change ?
3 Volume fluctuations ?
4 Mistake proofing ?
Have lists been prepared identifying :
5 New equipment?
6 New tooling?
7 New test equipment?
Has acceptance criteria been agreed upon for
8 New equipment?
9 New tooling?
10 New test equipment?
Will a preliminary capability study be conducted at the
11
tooling and/or equipment manufacturer?
Has test equipment feasibility and accuracy been
12
established?
Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for equipment
13
and tooling?
Are setup instructions for new equipment and tooling
14
complete and understandable?

Will capable gages be available to run preliminary process

15
capability studies at the equipment supplier's facility?

Will preliminary process capability studies be run at the

16
producing plant?
Have process characteristics that affect special product
17
characteristics been identified?
Were special product characteristics used in determining
18
acceptance criteria?
Does the manufacturing equipment have sufficient capacity
19
to handle forecasted production and service volumes?
20 Is testing capacity sufficient to provide adequate testing?
Revision Date :
RNS
 Prepared by :

RNS
Part Number: Chg. Lvl: Date:
Part Name: Customer: Volume:

I . RAWMATERIAL Casting \ Forging \ Bar \ Sheet metal

Material
Specification:

Is it possible to meet the Spec.

Metallurgy:
requirements?if no explain

Aluminium \ Brass \ Wood \ Cast iron \

Pattern:
Steel
Moulding Green sand \ Shell \ No bake \ Co 2 \
Process: Hot box \ Cold box \ Oil sand
Shell \ No bake \ Co 2 \ Hot box \ Cold
Core Process:
box \ Oil sand \ Green sand

Parting line:

How many
cavities?

Numeralkod \ Part number \ Change

Markings:
level \ "CAT" \ "INDIA"

Is it possible to measure all? If no

Dimensional :
explain.

Cirtical Product
Characteristics
($$) :

Cirtical Process
control
Characteristics
($#):

Instruments /
Gages:

Clarification if
any:

Other if any

FORMAT NUMBER:
Page 9 of 32
ISSUE DATE:02-01-2003
Other if any

II . FINISHING: Machining

Process
sequence:

Toolings

Instruments /
Gages:

Leak Testing: Air Pressure & Dipping time

Spot face Is spotface required as per 1E576 ?

Cleanliness: 1E2500 A \ 1E2500 B \ 1E2500 C \

1E2500 D \ GENERAL

Identification:

Is it possible to measure all? If no

Dimensional :
explain.

Cirtical Product
Characteristics
($$) :

Cirtical Process
control
Characteristics
($#):

Clarification if
any:

FORMAT NUMBER:
Page 10 of 32
ISSUE DATE:02-01-2003
Others if any:

III . CUSTOMER SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS:

Packing:

Painting:

Reporting:

Other surface
treatment:

Others if any:

NOTE: ANNEXURE A3 & A4 (CHECK SHEETS) SHALL BE FILLED AND RELEVANT SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS MADE. THE SAME SHALL BE ENCLOSED ALONG WITH TECHNICAL REVIEW.

Sign-Off

Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date

Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date

Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date

FORMAT NUMBER:
Page 11 of 32
ISSUE DATE:02-01-2003
 A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. :

Person Due
Question Yes No Comment/Action Required
Responsible Date
Does the floor plan identify all required process and
1
inspection points?
Have clearly marked areas for all material, tools, and
2
equipment at each operation been considered?
3 Has sufficient space been allocated for all equipment?
Are process and inspection areas:
4 Of adequate size?
5 Properly lighted?

6 Do inspection areas contain necessary equipment and files?

Are there adequate?

7 Staging areas?
8 Impound areas?
Are inspection points logically located to prevent shipment of
9
nonconforming products?
Have controls been established to eliminate the potential for
10 an operation, including outside processing, to contaminate or
mix similar products?
Is material protected from overhead or air handling systems
11
contamination?
12 Have final audit facilities been provided?
Are controls adequate to prevent movement of
13 nonconforming incoming materials to stroage or point of
use?

Revision date :

Prepared by :

RNS
 Date :
Customer :
Part Number: Part Name:

Feasibility Considerations

Our product quality planning team has considered the following questions, not intended to be all- inclusive in
performing a feasibility evaluation. The drawings and/or specifications provided have been used as a basis for
analizing the ability to meet all

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 Cpk's 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 without incurring any unusual:
Costs for capital equipment ?
Costs for tooling ?
Alternative manufacturing methods ?
Is statistical process control required on 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 ?
Are Cpk's greater than 1.33 ?
Conclusion

Feasible Product can be produced as specified with no revisions.

Feasible Changes recommended (see attached).
Not Feasible Design revision required to produce product within specified required.
Sign-Off

Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date

Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date

Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date

Page 13 of 32

FORMAT NUMBER:
 A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. :

Person Due
Question Yes No Comment/Action Required
Responsible Date
Does the flow chart illustrate the sequence of production and
1
inspection stations?

Were all the appropriate FMEAs (SFMEA, DFMEA) available

2
and used as aids to develop the process flow chart?

Is the flow chart keyed to product and process checks in the

3
control plan?
Does the flow chart describe how the product will move ie.,
4
roller conveyor, slide containers, etc.,?
Has the pull system/optimization been considered for this
5
process?
Have provisions been made to identify and inspect reworked
6
products before being used?
Have potential quality problems due to handling and outside
7
processing been identified and corrected?

Revision Date :

Prepared by :

RNS
 FLOW CHART SYMBOLS
WITH DISCRIPTION
Sl # Symbol Description Sl # Symbol Description

1 6 RECORD /
START DOCUMENT OUTPUT
TERMINATOR
END FORMAT # IS MUST

2 7 COMPILING
NO PROCEDURE CO DOCUMENTS
PROCESS LLA
BEING PRACTICED TE

3 8 SORTING
ALTERNATE NOT THE ROUTINE SO DOCUMENTS
PROCESS RT
PRACTICE

4 9
WORK INSTRUCTION CON REFERING WITHIN
PREDEFINED
NECT
PROCESS / WRITTEN PROCEDURE PAGE
OR
AVAILABLE

5 DECISION / 10 OFF-PAGE REFERING TO

DECISIO JUDGEMENT CONNECTO ANOTHER PAGE /
N R
DOCUMENT

Raja Nagasastha 15 - 32 01/30/2022

Optional, if all details addressed in FLOW CHART.
 A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. :

Person Due
Question Yes No Comment/Action Required
Responsible Date
Was the process FMEA prepared using the Chrysler, Ford
1
and General Motors guidelines?
Have all operations affecting fit, function, durability,
2 governmental regulations and safety been identiifed and
listed sequentially?
3 Were similar part FMEAs considered?
4 Have historical compaign and warranty data been reviewed?
Have appropriate corrective actions been planned or taken
5
for high risk priority numbers?
Have appropriate corrective actions planned or taken for
6
high severity numbers?
Were risk priorities numbers revised when corrective action
7
was completed?
Were high severity numbers revised when a design change
8
was completed?
Do the effects consider the customer in terms of the
9
subsequent operation, assembly and product?
Was warranty information used as an aid in developing the
10
process FMEA?
Were customer plant problems used as an aid in developing
11
the Process FMEA?
Have the causes been described in terms of something that
12
can be fixed or controlled?
Where detection is the major factor, have provisions been
13
made to control the cause prior to the next operation?

Revision Date : Prepared by: .

RNS
 POTENTIAL
FMEA Number ____________
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Page 18 of 32 __
(PROCESS FMEA)

Item Process Responsibility Prepared By

Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s) Key Date FMEA Date (Orig) (Rev.)

Core Team 0
C Potential O Current Current D Action Results
Process Potential S l c R Responsitility &
Potential Failure Cause(s)/ Process Process e Recommended
Function Effect(s) of e a c P Target Completion S O D R
Mode s Mechanism(s u Controls Controls t Action(s) Actions
Requirements Failure v N Date e c e P
s ) of Failure r Prevention Detection e Taken
v c t N

0 0

RNS
 A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. :

Person Due
Question Yes No Comment/Action Required
Responsible Date
Was the control plan methodology referenced in Section 6
1
used in preparing the control plan?
Have all known customer concerns been identified to
2 facilitate the selection of special product/process
characteristics?
Are all special product/process characteristics included in the
3
control plan?
Were SFMEA, DFMEA and PFMEA used to prepare the
4
control plan?
5 Are material specifications requiring inspection identified?
Does the control plan address incoming
6 (material/components) through processing/assembly
including packaging?
Are engineering performance testing requirements
7
identified?
Are gages and test equipment available as required by
8
control plan?
9 If required, has the customer approved the control plan?
Are gage methods compatible between supplier and
10
customer?

Revision Date : Prepared by: .

RNS
 CONTROL PLAN Page 20 of 32 _

Prototype Pre-launch Production Key Contact / Phonoe Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)

Control Plan Number

Part Number / Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval / Date (If Req'd)

/ 0

Part Name / Description Supplier / Plant Approval / Date Customer Quality Approval / Date (If Req'd)

Supplier / Plant Supplier Code Other Approval / Date (If Req'd) Other Approval / Date (If Req'd)

Characteristics Methods
Part / Process Process Name / Operation Machine, Device, Jig, Special Char.
Product / Process Evaluation Reaction Plan
Number Description Tools For Mfg. Class.
No. Product Process Specification / Measurement Size Freq. Control Method
Tolerance Technique

RNS
 Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility Report
Gage
Part No. & Name : Name: Date: 30-Jan-22

Characteristics: Gage #: No. of Parts = 10

Gage
Specifications: Type: No. of Trials = 3
Least
Tolerance Count: No. of Appraisers = 3

Performed by: Targeted Process Capability Cp = 1.00 1.00

Appraiser - A: Appraiser - B: Appraiser - C:

From data sheet:
R = 0.0000 X DIFF = #DIV/0! Rp = #DIV/0!
Measurement Unit Analysis % Total Variation [TV] (TOL)

Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)

EV = R x K1 %EV = 100 [EV / TV] (TOL / 6)

= 0 x 0.5908 Trials K1 = #DIV/0!

= 0 2 0.8862 = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

3 0.5908

Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)

AV = Sqrt(( X DIFF x K2)2 - (EV2 . (nr))) %AV = 100 [ AV / TV] (TOL / 6)

= #DIV/0! Appraisers 2 3 = #DIV/0!

n = parts r = trials K2 0.7071 0.5231 = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) %GRR = 100 [ GRR / TV]

GRR = Sqrt( EV2 + AV2) = #DIV/0!

= #DIV/0! = #DIV/0!

#DIV/0! %GRR = 100 [ GRR / (TOL / 6) ]

#DIV/0! Parts K3 = #DIV/0!

2 0.7071 = #DIV/0!

Part Variation (PV) 3 0.5231

PV = Rp x K3 4 0.4467 %PV = 100 [ PV / TV ] (TOL / 6)

= #DIV/0! 5 0.403 = #DIV/0!

6 0.3742 = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Total Variation (TV) 7 0.3534

TV = Sqrt(GRR2 + PV2) 8 0.3375 ndc = 1.41 ( PV / GRR )

= #DIV/0! 9 0.3249 = #DIV/0!

10 0.3146 = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

< 10% generally considered to be an acceptable measurement system

10 - 30% may be acceptable based upon importance of application & cost
Acceptability Criteria:
for % GRR & ndc
Acceptability Criteria: >30% considered to be not acceptable
for % GRR & ndc ndc number of distinct categories, should be >=5
 X bar AND R CONTROL CHART
PLANT DEPT. OPERATION DATE CONTROL LIMITS CALCULATED ENGINEERING SPECIFICATION PART NO.

MACH NO. DATES CHARACTERISTIC SAMPLE SIZE / FREQUENCY LSL USL UCL R LCL x UCL x PART NAME

Xdouble bar = Average Xbar = #DIV/0! UCL = X dbar + A2Rbar = #DIV/0! LCL = X dbar - A2Rbar = #DIV/0! AVERAGES ACTION
ON SPECIAL CAUSES
1
USL
* ANY POINT OUTSIDE OF THE
CONTROL LIMITS

* A RUN OF 7 POINTS ALL ABOVE OR

ALL BELOW THE CENTRAL LINE
UCL * A RUN OF 7 POINTS UP OR DOWN

1 * ANY OTHER OBVIOUSLY NON-

RANDOM PATTERN

LCL

ACTION INSTRUCTIONS

LSL 1. MAKE NO UNNECESSARY CHANGES

0 TO THE PROCESS
0
0
2. NOTE ANY CHANGES TO PROCESS
Rbar = Average R = #DIV/0! UCL = D4Rbar = #DIV/0! LCL = D3Rbar =
* RANGE (R CHART) ELEMENTS (PEOPLE, EQUIPMENT,
MATERIAL, METHODS, ENVIRONMENT,
12 UCLR OR MEASUREMENT SYSTEM) ON BACK
OF THIS FORM
10
8 SUB GROUP

6 SIZE A2 D3 D4
2 1.88 * 3.27
4 Rbar 3 1.02 * 2.57
2 4 0.73 * 2.28
0 5 0.58 * 2.11
R
DATE 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 6 0.48 * 2.00
ETIME
7 0.42 0.08 1.92
A 1 8 0.37 0.14 1.86
2
D 3 9 0.34 0.18 1.82
I 4 10 0.31 0.22 1.78
N 5
GSUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
THE PROCESS MUST BE IN CONTROL
SXbar BEFORE CAPABILITY CAN BE
DETERMINED.
Range
CHANGE
Legend for process change : S ~ Shift change, O ~ Operator change, T ~ Tool change, R ~ Tool regrind, P ~ Power failure, E ~ Setting error, C ~ Casting defect, A ~ Any other reason
 HINDUSTAN POWER PLUS LTD QARD
PROCESS CAPABILITY REPORT

HISTOGRAM
DISTRIBUTION OF VALUES

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
d2 1.13 1.69 2.06 2.33 2.53 2.70 2.85 2.97 3.08

Rbar = #DIV/0!
n= 0
d2= Check?
Sigma hat=Rbar/d2 = #DIV/0! Sigma's = #DIV/0!
Xdbar = #DIV/0!
LSL = 0
USL = 0

Since this process has bilateral tolerance:

ZUSL = USL - Xdbar = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Sigma hat

ZLSL = Xdbar - LSL = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Sigma hat

Cpk = Zmin = #DIV/0! #DIV/0! (= minimum of CPU or CPL)

3 Capability Index

Cp = USL - LSL = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

6 * Sigma hat

Pp = USL - LSL = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

6 * Sigma's

CPU = USL - Xdbar = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

3 * Sigma hat

CPL = Xdbar - LSL = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

3 * Sigma hat

Ppk = MIN ( ( USL - Xdbar) , ( Xdbar - LSL ) ) / ( 3 * Sigma's ) = #DIV/0!

The Capability Ratios are:
CR = 1 / Cp = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Page 24 of 32
HINDUSTAN POWER PLUS LTD QARD
PROCESS CAPABILITY REPORT

PR = 1 / Pp = #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Page 25 of 32
 HINDUSTAN POWER PLUS LTD QARD
PROCESS CAPABILITY REPORT

HISTOGRAM
UTION OF VALUES

0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 26 of 32
 PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING SUMMARY SIGN OFF
DATE: CUSTOMER:

Code / Name Approved

Part Number: Casting Supplier:
Part Name: Machining Supplier:
Change level: Others:

I . CASTING
a ). Dimension
Sl. No. Observation Action plan

b ).Metallurgy
Sl. No. Observation Action plan

c ).Process Capability Study

Status
Critical Product Characteristics ($$)
Critical Process Control Characteristics ($#)

d ).Measurement System Analysis Supplier

Status Schedule
Gage R*R

e ). Calibration Supplier
Status Schedule
Instruments & Gages
Pattern Equipment

f ). Part Submission Warrant:

FORMAT NUMBER :
Page 27 of 32
ISSUE DATE : 30-12-2002
g ). Packaging evaluation at HPL :

h ). Layout inspection :

II . MACHINING

a ). Dimension
Sl. No. Obesrvation Action plan

b ).Process Capability Study

Status
Critical Product Characteristics ($$)
Critical Process Control Characteristics ($#)

c ).Measurement System Analysis Supplier HPL

Status Schedule Status Schedule
Gage R*R

d ). Calibration Supplier HPL

Status Schedule Status Schedule
Instruments & Gages
Toolings

e ). Part Submission Warrant :

f ). Packaging evaluation at HPL :

h ) . Layout Inspection :

III . DISPOSITION OF THE CURRENT BATCH

IV . DOCUMENTS
Casting Machining HPL
Process Flow diagram
Characteristics Matrix

FORMAT NUMBER :
Page 28 of 32
ISSUE DATE : 30-12-2002
 Process FMEA
Process Control Plan
Process Instruction Sheet

V . MASTER SAMPLE Sl. No. Heat code Location SR no. Qty

(shall be retained at HPL of the

same heat submitted to customer)

VI . SAMPLE PRODUCT Sl. No. Heat code DA no. Qty

VII . PART SUBMISSION WARRANT TO THE CUSTOMER:

VIII . LAYOUT INSPECTION PLAN AT HPL :

IX . REMARKS:

QARD MATERIALS MANUFACTURING ENGG.

Customer feedback on PSW

Approved / Interim Approved / Not approved

Reason:

FORMAT NUMBER :
Page 29 of 32
ISSUE DATE : 30-12-2002
 QARD

FORMAT NUMBER :
Page 30 of 32
ISSUE DATE : 30-12-2002
 Part Submission Warrant
Part Name Part Number
Safety and/or
Government Regulation Yes No Engineering Drawing Change Level Dated

Additional Engineering Changes Dated

Shown on Drawing No. Purchase Order No. Weight (kg)

Checking Aid No. Engineering Change Level Dated

SUPPLIER MANUFACTURING INFORMATION SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Dimensional Materials/Functional Appearance

Supplier Name & Supplier Code
Customer Name/Division

Street Address Buyer/Buyer Code

Application
City State Zip

Note: Does this part contain any restricted or reportable substances. Yes No

Are plastic parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes Yes No

REASON FOR SUBMISSION `

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

REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)

Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated appeareance items, an Appearance Approval Report) submitted to customer.
Level 2 - Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 3 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer.
Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at supplier's manufacturing location.

SUBMISSION RESULTS

The results for dimensional measurementsmaterial and functional tests appearance criteria statistical process package
These results meet all drawing and specification requirements: Yes NO (If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process

DECLARATION
I hereby affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts, have been made to the applicable
customer drawings and specifications, and are made from the specified materials on regular production tooling with no operations
other thatn the regular production. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for review.

EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:

Print Name Title Phone No. FAX No.

Supplier Authorized Signature Date

FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE)

Part Warrant Disposition: Approved Rejected Part Functional Approval: Approved
Waived
Customer Name Customer Signature Date

Form no. F/10.3.2 The original copy of this document shall remain at the suppliers location Optional: customer tracking
Dated: September 18, 2002 while the part is active (see Glossary). number: #

Dated: 05-09-2003
RNS
 PCRA #

Process Change Request Cum Approval

Part# Supplier
Part Name Supplier Code
Change Level Location
Version Code Contact Person
Date Phone#
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT PROCESS, DESIGN, OR SPECIFICATION HPL ROUTING
QARD

Materials

Mfng.Engg

M/C Shop

Exports

Assembly

Package

EDE

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROCESS, DESIGN, OR SPECIFICATION CHANGE TYPE

PROCESS DESIGN

SOURCE TOOLING

CHG.LVL OTHERS

COST IMPACT

EFFECTIVE DATE

CHANGE PROPOSED BY : CUSTOMER / HPL / SUPPLIER / SUB CONTRACTOR CAPABILITY

Cp & Cpk
Name : Current Proposed
Department : Cp = Cp =
Cpk= Cpk=
DFMEA PFMEA Control Feature Flow Diagram PIN Control Plan
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

FOR CUSTOMER USE

PPAP Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
SUBMISSION
LEVEL
CUSTOMER DISPOSITION
APPROVED REJECTED
Signature Signature
Name Name
Date Date

Reason for Rejection :

RNS