1. ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board

2. Accredited Certification Bodies (CBs)  36 AS9100  12 AS9110  28 AS9120 Applicant CBs  2 AS9100 (US & Israel)  2 AS9110 (US) Suspensions  1 nonconforming (since lifted)  1 voluntary (since lifted) / 1 nonconforming (current)  1 nonconforming (current)  1 nonconforming (since lifted; for QMS including AS) Withdrawals  1 AS9120 (voluntary)  1 AS9100 applicant (voluntary)  1 AS9100, AS9120, AS9110 (Feb 2012)

3.  Heads Up 170, 175, 181, 187, 216  ALL CB’s completed the transition (in OASIS)  All CB’s applied prior to 1 Jan 2011 (no suspensions)  SR001 – Revised 4 Nov 2011  SR001 FAQ – Revised 14 Dec 2011  www.iaqg.org/oasis www.iaqg.org/oasis  Matrices received early Dec 2011 and early Jan 2012  No CB’s were suspended for lack of matrix received

4.  Make sure decision making person/people are competent  SR001  9101D  Make sure required 9101 documentation is fully completed  Make sure audits are completed as required / scheduled, if not client suspended  ANAB sent an AATT trained assessor to most all office assessments in 2011  ANAB sending two assessors to most all office assessments in 2012  One being an assessor that successfully passed the AATT training

6.  372 (Feb 2011) – An organization is complaining about their AS9120 audit and the auditor assigned. CB is redoing the audit because of the first audit.  Details were requested, not provided.  Follow up during the next office assessment.  Closed, unable to substantiate Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

7.  378 (Mar 2011) – An organization is complaining about their certification status in OASIS; their status was marked withdrawn (by the CB) and it was suppose to be suspended.  Found valid, Action was taken by the CB and OASIS was updated.  Closed, with action Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

8.  379 (Apr 2011) – An AQMS certificate issued without an accreditation mark. The copy of the certificate was a draft and the final certificate was issued properly.  Closed, invalid Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

9.  380 (Apr 2011) – Questions in regards to the auditor.  Closed, partially valid  Conducted a complaint validation audit  Conducting additional witnessed audits Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

10.  381 (Apr 2011) – Certificate and scope of certification in OASIS not consistent in regards to inclusions/exclusions.  The items outlined in OASIS were actually sections of the standard that were not audited, not exclusions to the certificate. The CB entered them in the wrong fields.  Closed, with action. Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

11.  388 (Jun 2011) – Organization continues to have AS9100 certificates referencing ISO 9001:2000  Complaint found valid, NCR issued to CB.  Closed, with action. Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

12.  389 (Jul 2011) – CB transferred a client whose certificate had been withdrawn. The CB treated the client as an initial client and did not transfer the certificate.  Closed, invalid Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

13.  397 (Oct 2011) – In regards to the outcome of a customer’s audit including the rating of the PEAR’s. The customer appealed to the CB and lost the appeal. The investigation found the CB followed their process (which conforms to requirements) and the main issue revolved around an interpretation of the form, which is part of AS9101. Recommended contacting the Sector Document Rep.  Closed, invalid Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

14.  399 (Nov 2011) – A customer’s transition audit was not scheduled when required due to the CB not having an auditor. The customer was told to transfer to another CB. The CB had lost several auditors. The CB admits that they didn't respond to the client as quick as they should have but they did have evidence that they tried to reschedule the client. They have identified other auditor resources and provided evidence that all other AS clients are on schedule. Internal CA was verified.  Closed, with action Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

15.  401 (Nov 2011) – A CB certified two organizations to AQMS standards in India and according to the complaint they may not have used the accurate employee count to come to the accurate audit day numbers. Found valid; major NCR issued (late Dec 2011)  Open, needs correction Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

16.  404 (Dec 2011) – A customer states their CB is going to withdraw their certificate early because they are transferring to another CB. The CB has a procedural requirement above & beyond requirements (if an audit is missed the certificate is canceled; not suspended). The CB agreed to not withdrawal the certificate since the customer scheduled the audit with the other CB (evidence was provided).  Closed, with action Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

17.  None Received Complaint in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Complaint in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

18.  A91 – Received Dec 2010 – Closed, partially upheld  Appealing several NCR’s from an AQMS witnessed audit  NCR in regards to missing items in the Quality Manual – NCR upheld  NCR in regards to document control – NCR withdrawn  NCR in regards to auditing to sufficient depth – 1 of 4 evidence items withdrawn, 4 part of the NCR evidence upheld  NCR in regards to the accuracy of the scope statement on the certificate – NCR upheld Appeal in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Appeal in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

19.  A103– Received Feb 2011 – Closed, appeal denied  Appealed a major NCR during an AQMS office assessment in regards to accepting poor corrective action responses from the CB’s client  The CB discussed why the acceptance of updated documentation from their client and how the results of a check of a large quantity of other data supported that the fault was an isolated incident and therefore, the CB's acceptance of that client's CA response was not an indication of major deficiencies in the CB process.  ANAB discussed the repeat nature of the nonconformity issued to the CB, the lack of objective evidence for the CA taken by the CB client, and the lack of a complete and thorough Root Cause Analysis by the CB client, even though the fault was described as an isolated incident.  Even in isolated incidents the client must still provide acceptable CA to address the root cause to eliminate reoccurrence.  Therefore the panel upholds the NCR as valid. Appeal in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Appeal in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

20.  A108– Received April 2011– Appeal upheld, NCR’s withdrawn  Appealed two minor NCRs during an AQMS witnessed audits.  Sufficient sample to draw conclusions  Not requiring client to provide root cause to NCR’s.  The panel has found that while statements made during the appeal hearing indicated that nonconformities may have existed at the time of the audit, the documented statements of finding for NCR 01 and NCR02 were not substantiated by objective evidence. Appeal in italics was provided previously and has no changes. Appeal in bold is new or was updated since the last meeting.

21. 2011 Office Assessments  46 required (10 follow up) – All completed Witnessed Audits  53 required (8 follow-up and 9 AS9120) – All completed 2012 Office Assessments  39 required (4 follow up)  18 Scheduled Dates & 21 Scheduling Witnessed Audits  52 required (2 follow-up and 15 AS9120)  13 Scheduled Dates & 39 Scheduling/Unscheduled

22.  Office Assessments ~ 238 NCRs  52 NCR’s to aerospace requirements during 46 office assessments  13 majors, (6 originally minor, escalated due to timing)  186 NCR’s to ISO 17021 or general requirements during 46 office assessments  24 majors, (5 originally minor, escalated due to timing)  Witnessed Audits ~ 72 NCRs  26 NCR’s to aerospace requirements during 53 witnessed audits  11 majors (1 originally minor, escalated due to timing)  46 NCR’s to ISO 17021 or other requirements during 53 witnessed audits  12 majors, (3 originally minor, escalated due to timing)

24.  Aerospace Program Manager – New Position  Bob Cruse, ANAB Accreditation Assessor  Half time operations / Accreditation Assessments  Start Date TBD, Transition Plan in Process  Valerie Aronica, Client Coordinator,  Started 7 Nov 2011, in training  Ron Wilmes, John Stratton, Bob Abbott (Accreditation Assessors) no longer with ANAB  Revised many tools and procedures for Office Assessments and Witnessed Audits

25.  Transition Team – Lori Scheid-Gillespie & Donna Reinke (& Bob Cruse)  Will include Assessors and Council Members (as needed)  Committed to meeting SR002  Targeting RMC approval in 2 nd Quarter  Initial Review – Minimal changes to ANAB’s mgmt system  Many 9104/1 requirements are ANAB’s process already

26.  Questions / Comments