Loading...
Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) on ASTM standards and related intellectual property is prohibited. Violations will result in suspension of access.
By Peter Fortini
Jan 05, 2026
Preservation of an old standard may be useful when it continues to be of use in industry, its content is not practically reproducible, and the original standard is withdrawn and at risk of disappearing. In converting material into an ASTM standard, form, style, and terminology are areas that require particular attention.
A recent “Data Points” column1 describes a group of ASTM standards derived from military standard sampling and acceptance procedures: the standard practice for sampling a stream of product by attributes indexed by AQL (E2234) based on MIL-STD-105E; the standard practice for sampling a stream of product by variables indexed by AQL (E2762) based on MIL-STD-414; the standard practice for single- and multi-level continuous sampling of a stream of product by attributes indexed by AQL (E2819) based on MIL-STD-1235B; and the standard guide for preferred methods for acceptance of product (E2910) based on MIL-STD-1916.
Here, we go into further depth by addressing the rationale for offering these versions of the standards, the steps taken to make them conform to ASTM form and style while preserving the original content, and issues that may arise along the way.
The principal AQL-indexed sampling plans, MIL-STD-105E and MIL-STD-414, each specify a sample size that decreases as a fraction of lot size and is also dependent on an inspection level. Acceptance and rejection numbers are tabulated. A lot is accepted under the attribute sampling plan MIL-STD-105E if the number of nonconforming units in the sample is below the rejection number. A lot is accepted under the variables sampling plan of MIL-STD-414 based on criteria for the mean and variability of sample data. The AQL indexes plans. The AQL value indicates approximately a fraction of nonconformance at the boundary of acceptability; however, the number is not a precisely defined quantity. The values offered in the standards are also approximately in geometric series and designed to keep acceptance numbers constant along diagonals of the table.
An essential feature of both systems is a program of switching rules between normal, tightened, and reduced inspection. Good quality performance, as evidenced by a long sequence of accepted lots, is rewarded by reduced sample sizes. Poorer performance invokes tightened inspection, which may involve larger samples and more stringent (lower) acceptance numbers.
The attribute and variables sampling plans are widely used. The continuous sampling procedures given in MIL-STD-1235B are less well-known, and the standard also features systematic reduction or increase in the fraction of items sampled depending on defects found in the sequence of inspected items. MIL-STD-1916 also provides sampling inspection plans for both attribute and variables data, but focuses on the importance of process control and quality systems.
It is reasonable to ask: “Why attempt to preserve an old standard?” The alternative is to generate and maintain an entirely new document containing the essential technical content, then allow the original to become obsolete and eventually disappear. Successors to the two most important of these, MIL-STD-105E and MIL-STD-414, are ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 and Z1.9 in the U.S., and ISO 2589 and 3951 internationally.
The impetus within the committee on quality and statistics (E11) for preservation of these sampling standards came from a member who had been involved with the development of the successor standards outside ASTM. The first concern is that they were in danger of being lost. The Federal Office of Management and Budget circular A-119, issued in 1993 and revised in 1998, directs government agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in preference to government-unique standards where practical. The Department of Defense (DoD) was no exception, and canceled MIL-STD-105E and MIL-STD-414, in favor of ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 and Z1.9, in 1995 and 1999, respectively. MIL-STD-1235C was cancelled in 1997 without a replacement. MIL-STD-1916 remains in effect for DoD, though it, too, was briefly inactivated in 2014. Decades later, the three cancelled standards are no longer readily available on the DoD website, though copies can still be found by searching on the web. The originals, especially MIL-STD-105E, did continue to be used in the industry after being canceled. This reason to preserve the standards has become less compelling with the passage of time. A new agreement between a supplier and customer specifying sampling according to one of these schemes would be advised to cite one of the successors.
A second concern was that, as standards belonging to other organizations, the standards were subject to periodic review and revision within those organizations. A gradual evolution of the content could be expected. This has indeed occurred to different extents for both MIL-STD-105E and MIL-STD-414. There are changes in terminology (to be discussed in the following), details of switching rules, and subtle changes in sample numbers and acceptance-rejection numbers. The basic sampling tables remain the same in ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 and ISO 2589 as MIL-STD-105D and -E. The basic sampling table data does change between MIL-STD-414 and ANSI/ASQ Z1.9. Plans for MIL-STD-414 were matched to an earlier version, MIL-STD-105A, and when the final form of the sampling tables were developed for MIL-STD-105D in 1963, the corresponding variables sampling plans (from 1957) were not updated. For this reason, the preservation of MIL-STD-414 might be primarily of historical importance.
The format and style of ASTM standards must be understood and mastered by everyone involved in their initial development or significant revisions. The style manual Form and Style for ASTM Standards (the “Blue Book”) was introduced in 1996. Within ASTM, technical committees have updated standards they control to conform to it through periodic revisions. To adapt the military standards, which were not written in the same style, changes must be made.
Ultimately, the plan for adapting the military standards was that mandated sections of Scope, References, Terminology, and Significance and Use were to be under the control of E11 and subject to revision. The remaining body was to be text from the original military standard and regarded as frozen for preservation. In many cases, introductory material in the originals could be usefully copied into Significance and Use and sometimes the Scope.
Terminology is a key component of standards development. Terminologies in standards are especially important to the committee on quality and statistics. The committee has a terminology standard, the standard terminology relating to quality and statistics (E456), which collects terms defined in the main terminologies (not specific to the standard) of technical standards. This differs from most other technical committees, for which a terminology standard is maintained independently. The E11 standard provides both a motivation and an issue for the preservation of older military standards. First, these standards provided a place to define terms related to acceptance sampling. However, all of them come with terminology sections of their own. E11 wants to maintain control of its terminology and to be free to exclude terms or change definitions given in these preserved standards. Term definitions in the originals could be preserved either as part of body text, or could be extracted as terms specific to the standard in the Terminology section.
A relevant example is the acronym “AQL” itself, closely associated with the plans. In the MIL-STD originals, this acronym stood for “acceptable quality level.” The ANSI/ASQ and ISO versions changed the reading to “acceptance quality limit,” which is generally accepted by all, including E11. In adapting the MIL-STDs, the modern reading is given in the Terminology section, while the original reading is left in the preserved text. Another change was to replace “defect” in the originals with “nonconforming” in modern standards. E11 preferred to keep it “defect” as more in keeping with the aim of preservation of original content. Other text changes, including the replacement of “government” and “contractor” for “customer” and “producer,” were adopted for more general applicability.
The preservation of military standards provides a case study in standards development at ASTM, distinguished in that the technical content is a given. All of our committees have standards that must take into account the historical development of standards and must strike a balance between matching and distinguishing content from that of competing standards and other sources.
References
1) J. Carson and S. Luko (2025). “A History of the Subcommittee on Statistical Quality Control,” Standardization News, Vol. 53, No. 5, Sep/Oct 2025, pp. 70-72. ●
Peter Fortini is a member of the committee on quality and statistics (E11). He is an ASTM International fellow and Award of Merit honoree.
John Carson, Ph.D., is senior statistician for Neptune and Co. and the Data Points column coordinator. Carson is the current chair of E11.30 and a member of the committees on quality and statistics (E11); petroleum products, liquid fuels, and lubricants (D02); air quality (D22); environmental assessment, risk management, and corrective action (E50); and personal protective clothing and equipment (F23).
January / February 2026
