From: Bonnie G. Carter
Date: 6/30/98

PRESS RELEASE

The Fastener Quality Act: Is It Ready For You?

Submitted by Bonnie G. Carter,   Coordinator - Metric Importers of North America (MINA),
A nationwide group of companies importing metric fasteners

Implementation of the Fastener Quality Act has been postponed again - this time until October 25, 1998.

The National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) has determined there are still not enough testing labs certified to handle the anticipated demand of the fastener industry.

A survey of registered labs was recently compiled by Metric Importers of North America (MINA). On June 26, 1998, NIST had completed certification of 253 labs - worldwide - for fastener testing. MINA has received survey forms back from 136 of those labs certified by NIST. Most of the responding labs will not be accepting commercial work from outside of their own company. The survey shows there are only 42 labs - worldwide - accepting commercial work, and only 25 of those labs are located in the United States. There are roughly 3500 fastener distributors in the United States who will be dependent upon these few labs. Even if a greater percentage of remaining labs should happen to take in commercial work, the geographic distribution is poorly established. New England does not have even a single commercial testing facility.

Also, of great importance to the lab survey, are the fields of testing for which each lab is certified. When a lab files an application for certification with one of the certifying bodies, the lab states the types of tests and standards on which it will maintain an overall program of verification and calibration. Therefore, it may require two, three or more labs to cover all aspects of a fastener that must be tested to comply with the Fastener Quality Act. As yet, no lab has stated they are prepared to test for DIN standards - the most widely available of metric fasteners.

Beyond the issue of labs, Congress has started the process to require a review of the current need for the Fastener Quality Act. Congress Recently approved H.R.3824 RFS and sent it to the Senate (S.1325). The initial bill requested exemption of aircraft fasteners from the FQA testing requirements. The FAA maintains their own testing requirements and did not feel they should comply with two systems of testing. The director of NIST agreed with FAA on avoiding costly, duplicative testing. But, if the original purpose of the law was to cover critical fasteners, how can NIST and FAA ask to exempt aircraft fasteners? Several months ago, the automotive coalition received concessions for their preferred testing scheme. After the House Science Committee hearing, it became more apparent that the FQA has become an economic burden with unnecessary and duplicative regulations. An amendment was added to H.R.3824 RFS calling for delaying implementation of the regulations until June 1, 1999. During this delay period NIST is to prepare a study for the Secretary of Commerce. NIST is to detail: (1) the changes in fastener manufacturing processes that have occurred since the enactment of the Fastener Quality Act; and (2) any changes in the Act that may be warranted because of the changes reported under paragraph (1). Perhaps during this time the fastener end users and distributors should compile a study of their own. Many OEMs and machine shops are still not aware of the potential impact this Act will have upon their businesses.

If an OEM stocks fasteners as replacement parts for their customers' needs, those fasteners will be covered by the Act and must be certified before they can be sold. Therefore a machine shop which is threading to any of the consensus standards and heat treating the parts will need to have those parts certified by an accredited lab. These parts must also be marked with a registered head marking. Anyone altering a fastener will be required to register with the Patent and Trademark Office. As of this time, virtually no machine shops have applied for head marking registration. In order to sell certified parts, the head markings must be registered with PTO. The registration process with PTO generally takes several months.

Several fastener groups have requested consideration for the sale of small lot quantities of fastener. NIST has not adequately addressed the need for just-in-time deliveries or emergency delivery of parts. The law still requires the fastener to be tested before it can be sold to a customer.

Another breakdown in the line of traceability occurs when a customer does not request the Certificate of Conformance for parts before they are shipped. The seller of a fastener does not have to supply a certification to a customer after the parts have been shipped. So, the master importer sells the bolts to a local distributor who then sells them to an OEM for replacement parts. When the part fails in the machinery of the end user, and no one has carried the certs forward, the fastener failure may not be traceable. Or, if the part takes more than five years to break, the certs may have been destroyed after the required holding period (5 years).

NIST has recently published answers to hundreds of questions at their web site www.nist.gov/fqa/fqa.htm   . Unfortunately, many of these answers have raised new questions on the interpretation of the law. The questions accumulated from several seminars held since 1996.

After attending several fastener industry sponsored Fastener Quality Act seminars, there are still areas that just do not make any sense. The Certificate of Conformance must carry the name of the manufacturer of the fastener. My government is requiring me to tell my customer where he can buy the product and therefore circumvent the need for my operation. Has the U. S. Treasury taken into consideration how many companies may be put out of business if they cannot keep their supplier base proprietary? If the fastener is going to be sold outside of the United States, it still must be certified since no fastener can be sold into commerce unless it is tested and meets the specifications represented. All this testing and specifying does not relieve any one of liability in the event of a fastener failure. A willing customer and supplier cannot waive the need for fastener testing.

The best catch-22 comes on returning goods. A supplier cannot sell goods which have been returned with a tamperproof seal broken. My customer receives the shipment and opens the box to inspect the product. The merchandise in the box is wrong, either not as ordered or ordered incorrectly, your supplier cannot sell those parts again. Once the seal was broken, there was no guarantee the goods were still from the certified lot.

The Fastener Quality Act is still rife with misunderstandings, loaded with redundant tests, and very unmanageable in daily commerce. The U. S. Senate willl do everyone a favor if the fastener industry is given another year to rework this law. Stay tuned!

June 30, 1998