Via E-mail only February 29, 2016 Charles Adkins, CCS Inc. charlie@corporatecleaning.com

Stephan Bright, ASC I14 sdbright@optonline.net

Nora Flaherty, Attorney for CCS Inc. nflaherty@burkelaw.com

Travis Herman therman@larryswindowservice.com

Ira Levin, Attorney for CCS Inc. ILevin@burkelaw.com

Tom Triven tom@glass-metal.com

Dated Notice

Re: Accreditation status of ASC I14 Window Cleaning Safety with the International Window

Cleaning Association (IWCA) as Secretariat (ASC I14)

Dear Appeals Participants: I am writing to advise you that the ExSC Panel (Panel) that considered Corporate Cleaning Services Inc.’s (CCS) 2015 appeal of ASC I14’s accreditation, reconvened on February 9, 2016 to review the entire record, including recent submissions from ASC I14 and CCS, and determined that ASC I14’s accreditation shall be suspended effective immediately pending the satisfactory conclusion of a special audit.1 As summarized below, the Panel continues to have substantial concerns that the procedures and practices of ASC I14 deviated from the ANSI Essential Requirements.2 Appeals History By way of brief background, on September 16, 2015, the Panel heard an appeal filed by CCS of the accreditation of ASC 114. At that time, ASC I14 remained subject to a prior ExSC appeals decision -- following an earlier suspension of ASC I14’s accreditation in July 2012 -- requiring its next standard undergo a special audit in advance of any review by the ANSI Board of Standards Review (BSR).3 The Panel issued an interim decision following its September 16, 2015 appeals hearing (interim decision) expressing concern with ASC I14’s largely unresponsive reply to CCS’s appeals filing and requesting a substantive written response from ASC I14 to specific questions issued by the ExSC

1 The results of a special audit are confidential between the ExSC and the ANSI-Accredited Standards Developer (ASD). 2 The criteria for accreditation are found in Section 4.1 Accreditation of American National Standards Developers of the ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American National Standards (ANSI Essential Requirements), available at www.ansi.org/essentialrequirements. 3 The ANSI BSR is charged with the approval of standards as ANS when submitted by ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers (ASD), like ASC I14, that do not hold the status of ANSI Audited Designator.

2

Panel. (See Attachment A.) ASC I14 provided its response as requested and that response was then provided to CCS for reply. Thereafter, on February 9, 2016 the Panel reconvened to consider the supplemented record.

*** Panel Decision The Panel continues to have substantial concerns with the manner in which ASC I14 appears to be interpreting and implementing its accredited procedures. These concerns include, but are not limited to openness on the consensus body established for the proposed American National Standard (ANS); the implementation of ASC I14’s membership application, interview and approval/denial process; interest category classification decisions; consensus body balance and the potential for dominance; handling of developer-level procedural appeals; and the effect the practices reflected in the record to date may have had on the overall consensus process undertaken with respect to a draft standard that is already subject to a special audit. Accordingly, the Panel hereby determines that ASC I14’s accreditation shall be suspended effective immediately and such suspension shall continue until the satisfactory conclusion of the special audit process or until the ExSC determines otherwise. ASC I14 and IWCA are expected to cooperate throughout the special audit process including responding substantively to all procedural questions posed and providing all requested evidence of compliance. In connection with the special audit, the auditor will be provided with ASC I14’s response to the questions posed in the interim decision and the related reply by CCS, in addition to other documentation routinely provided relative to a special audit. The ExSC will consider the results of the special audit when completed, before making a final decision as to the status of ASC I14’s accreditation. Effect of Suspension of Accreditation and Related Notice While ASC I14’s accreditation is suspended, it may not refer to itself as an ANSI-Accredited Standards Developer. It may not use the ASD or ANS logo and it may not submit PINS, BSR-8s, BSR-9s or the like to ANSI to advance any proposed American National Standards (ANS). Any appeals already filed with ANSI and any new appeals that may be filed with ANSI concerning ASC I14 shall be held in abeyance pending the conclusion of the special audit process and the ExSC’s final decision. Finally, since June 2011, ASC I14 has been advised by the ANSI ExSC of the corrective actions it must take to retain its accreditation. Per the notice requirements of 4.1.4 Withdrawal of accreditation of the ANSI Essential Requirements (excerpted as Attachment B), ASC I14 is hereby provided final notice that it is required to satisfactorily conclude the special audit process in such a way that its accreditation may be reinstated, or failing that, the accreditation of ASC I14 may be withdrawn at the conclusion of the current special audit process.

3

Notification of the Right to Appeal

Please be advised that this transmission via E-mail constitutes your official notification of the decision of the ExSC. Parties to the appeal who believe that they have been or will be adversely affected by the results of the subject hearing are hereby notified of their right of further appeal to the ANSI Appeals Board. Should you choose to appeal this decision to the ANSI Appeals Board, written notice of appeal and all appeals statements and supporting documentation must be filed with the Secretary of the ANSI Appeals Board (the office of the undersigned) by March 21, 2016. The appeal shall be accompanied by a check in the amount of $1200.00 as a filing fee. If you require an extension for the filing of appeals materials, you must contact the Secretary of the ANSI Appeals Board on or before March 21, 2016, or you will forfeit your right to further appeal. The appeals statement must specify the decision from which the appeal is taken, the ANSI body that made the decision, a short statement of the matter in controversy and the reason(s) why the Appellant believes the decision is in error. The appeals statement must also list all other parties that appeared before the ANSI body with respect to the matter being appealed. A copy of the ANSI Appeals Board Operating Procedures is attached to the E-mail that transmitted this decision. Sincerely, Anne Anne Caldas Secretary ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) cc: Mark Bennett, IWCA Patricia Griffin, ANSI VP & General Counsel Lane Hallenbeck, ANSI VP Accreditation Services

ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) Attachment A: 2015 ANSI ExSC Interim Decision (includes prior related ExSC Decisions) Attachment B: Clause 4.1.4 of the ANSI Essential Requirements

Via E-mail only October 13, 2015 Charles Adkins, CCS Inc. charlie@corporatecleaning.com

Stephan Bright sdbright@optonline.net

Nora Flaherty, Attorney for CCS Inc. nflaherty@burkelaw.com

Travis Herman therman@larryswindowservice.com

Ira Levin, Attorney for CCS Inc. ILevin@burkelaw.com

Tom Triven tom@glass-metal.com

Dated Notice

Re: Appeal by Corporate Cleaning Services Inc. (‘CCS’) of the accreditation as a developer of

American National Standards (‘ANS’), of ASC I 14 Window Cleaning Safety with the International Window Cleaning Association (‘IWCA’) as Secretariat (‘ASC I14’)

Dear Appeals Participants: On September 16, 2015 the ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) heard the above appeal. The decision of the ANSI ExSC follows. Please be advised that this transmission via E-mail constitutes your official notification of the decision of the ExSC. Parties to the appeal who believe that they have been or will be adversely affected by the results of the subject hearing are hereby notified of their right of further appeal to the ANSI Appeals Board. Should you choose to appeal this decision to the ANSI Appeals Board, written notice of appeal and all appeals statements and supporting documentation must be filed with the Secretary of the ANSI Appeals Board (the office of the undersigned) by November 3, 2015. The appeal shall be accompanied by a check in the amount of $1200.00 as a filing fee. If you require an extension for the filing of appeals materials, you must contact the Secretary of the ANSI Appeals Board on or before November 3, 2015, or you will forfeit your right to further appeal. The appeals statement must specify the decision from which the appeal is taken, the ANSI body that made the decision, a short statement of the matter in controversy and the reason(s) why the Appellant believes the decision is in error. The appeals statement must also list all other parties that appeared before the ANSI body with respect to the matter being appealed. A copy of the ANSI Appeals Board Operating Procedures is attached to the E-mail that transmitted this decision.

2

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, or if I may be of assistance to you, please contact me at (212) 642-4914 or send an E-mail to acaldas@ansi.org. Sincerely, Anne Anne Caldas Secretary ANSI Board of Standards Review cc: Patricia Griffin, ANSI VP & General Counsel Lane Hallenbeck, ANSI VP Accreditation Services

ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) Attachment 1: 2012 ANSI ExSC Decision Attachment 2: 2014 ANSI ExSC Decision

3

ANSI EXECUTIVE STANDARDS COUNCIL SUMMARY INTERIM DECISION

In response to the appeal filed by Corporate Cleaning Services, Inc., (‘CCS’) with the ANSI Executive Standards Council (‘ExSC’) of the accreditation of ASC I14 Window Cleaning Safety with the International Window Cleaning Association (‘IWCA’) as Secretariat (‘ASC I14’), the ANSI ExSC requests a substantive written response by November 3, 2015 to the questions posed herein, with a subsequent reply from the Appellant, before a final decision is made as to the status of ASC I14’s accreditation. Appellant: Corporate Cleaning Services, Inc. (CCS) Represented by: Charles Adkins, COO, CCS Inc. Nora Flaherty, Attorney for CCS Ira Levin, Attorney for CCS

Respondent in person: ASC I14 with IWCA as Secretariat Represented by: Stefan Bright, Chair ASC I14

Travis Herman, President of IWCA Tom Trinen, Vice Chair of ASC I14, Service One

Hearing Date: September 16, 2015 Hearing Location: ANSI, New York ANSI Executive Standards Council Panel

Neil Bogatz, Panel Chair Sue Carioti Scott Colburn Kerri Conn Mary Donaldson Chris Dubay

Jessica Evans John Kulick Greg Orloff Dan Ryan Paula Watkins

Observers Mark Bennett, IWCA (by phone) Oralia Castaneda, CCS Inc. Jason York, IWCA (by phone) Sandra Stewart, ExSC Observer Neal Zucker, CCS Inc.

4

I. Procedural History Appellant, Corporate Cleaning Services, Inc. (‘CCS’) files this appeal against Respondent, ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee (‘ASC’) I14 Window Cleaning Safety, whose Secretariat is the International Window Cleaning Association (‘IWCA’), (hereinafter ‘ASC I14’) alleging procedural irregularities in the way in which ASC I14 is developing the IWCA I14.1 Window Cleaning Safety (‘I14.1’) standard (‘Window Cleaning Standard’). Since many of the same complaints were raised in earlier appeals, a brief overview of ASC I14’s history is in order. ASC I14 was first accredited as a standards developer by the ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) on May 12, 1999. ASC I14’s accreditation was thereafter suspended by the ExSC in July 2012 as a consequence of an appeal and a special audit for cause (See 2012 ExSC Decision, Attachment 1). The ExSC noted at that time:

As a result of the Special Audit, and based on the number and severity of issues identified therein, the accreditation of ASC I14 with IWCA as its Secretariat shall be suspended effective immediately and until such time as it successfully completes the reaccreditation process to address all procedural audit findings. Once the suspension is lifted, then ASC I14 shall undergo a Special Audit of the I14.1 standard (or whatever designation is used to identify the Window Cleaning Safety standard) after the standard’s development process concludes and prior to submittal to the ANSI Board of Standards Review (BSR) for approval. Should ASC I14 choose not to develop the Window Cleaning Safety standard, then it shall so notify ANSI and the first standard developed by ASC I14 shall be subject to a Special Audit.

Accordingly ASC I14 and IWCA are required to submit revised procedures for review by the ANSI ExSC.

(See 2012 ExSC Decision, Attachment 1 at Page 2.) ASC I14 thereafter submitted revised procedures in accordance with the 2012 Decision. Its accreditation was then reinstated under these revised procedures in October 2013 and it was reaccredited again in October 20141. Thereafter, two more appeals were brought against ASC I14 challenging the reaccreditation decision. Those appeals were heard by the ANSI ExSC in 2014 and were ultimately deemed premature because the claims related to a standard (i.e., the Window Cleaning Standard) that was then in an early stage of development. The ExSC determined that the standards development process had not advanced very far and ASC I14 had not been given sufficient opportunity to demonstrate they could comply with their revised procedures. (See 2014 ExSC Decision, Attachment 2 at Page 4.) On May 1, 2015, CCS filed this appeal, again requesting the withdrawal of the accreditation of ASC I14 on the basis of alleged irregularities in the development of the Window Cleaning Standard, which is now in a later stage of development.2 A supplemental statement was submitted by CCS shortly thereafter and was added to the filing, both of which were provided to ASC I14 for response. CCS cited procedural violations of both ANSI’s Essential Requirements and violations of ASC I14’s own

1 At the time of this appeal, another set of revised procedures has been submitted to the ExSC for reaccreditation, but that process has not concluded. 2 By way of background I14.1 was at one time approved as an American National Standard (ANS); however, it was administratively withdrawn in 2011 because it had not been revised or reaffirmed by the 10th anniversary of its approval as an ANS. To date, I14.1 has not been submitted under the special audit requirement still in place, and thus, is not an American National Standard at this time.

5

procedures. While ASC I14 was afforded the opportunity to submit whatever documentation it wished in reply to CCS’s filing, the response it gave to most of the issues raised took the form of a non-substantive refrain to the effect that IWCA would address and respond to these arguments at a future time. Specifically, IWCA stated repeatedly:

The IWCA will be able to prove otherwise that all procedures were followed during the membership application process during the special audit to be conducted by ANSI after the standard’s development process concludes and prior to submittal to the ANSI Board of Standards Review (BSR) for approval. See Response to Corporate Cleaning Services, Inc.’s Petition to Remove ANSI Accreditation from the ASC-I14 Committee and for Other Relief and Supplemental Submission. July 10, 2015.

II. Analysis and Decision Although the standards development process for the Window Cleaning Standard has still not concluded, it has proceeded far enough to permit the ExSC to evaluate the ASC I14’s performance against its revised procedures and the Essential Requirements. The ExSC is concerned, however, that given the number and seriousness of the recent complaints by CCS, ASC I14 largely refused to respond. The responses provided by ASC I14 to those complaints are unresponsive and ultimately insufficient to permit the ExSC to address the concerns and reach the merits of CCS’s appeal. The ExSC is also concerned that at the hearing, representatives of ASC I14 were not able to directly answer many of the Panel’s questions and did not demonstrate a clear understanding of ANSI’s procedural requirements, particularly with respect to how membership decisions were made. In light of this, the ExSC hereby directs ASC I14 to answer the following questions and provide all supporting evidence as part of ASC I14’s response. If ASC I14 is unable or unwilling to respond to these questions by the established deadline, the ExSC will take a final action based on the record to date.

1. Describe how the ASC I14 handles Membership, specifically:

a. how the current ASC I14 Members were selected prior to and after the suspension of ASC I14’s accreditation;

b. how the current Chair and Vice Chair were elected/confirmed; c. how new members, since the ASC I14’s suspension, were identified to fill vacancies in

each interest category; d. how, and in what instances, the Committee assigned interest categories that were

different than those proposed by an applicant; e. how the Committee assesses an applicant’s “overall verifiable experience and

competency” as those traits relate to the category of interest; f. what criteria were used to assign Stefan Bright, Bob Zeolla, Nigel Ellis and Carl Pedersen

to their interest categories; and g. what process was/is used to determine whether a candidate whose application was not

“accepted” could be considered at a later date and how and when such a candidate could appeal that determination?

2. What outreach did the Committee undertake (or is taking) to achieve balance?

3. Explain how the interest categories in ASC I14’s procedures include all materially affected

interests, including companies like CCS. For example, how would Mr. Adkins be able to

6

participate on the ASC I14? Where would he fit and why? The ExSC notes that a reply that “the ANSI ExSC approved the interest categories” is not sufficient.

4. Explain why the lists of Committee members by interest category do not align. For example:

Appellant’s Exhibits 14 ASC I14 Committee Roster 10/2014 (which mirrors Appellant slide 12) and 18 Members by Category – IWCA ASC I14 Committee. October 8, 2014. Provide an accurate roster of the Committee makeup as of the following dates: April 10-11, 2014; October 8-9, 2014.

5. Describe the outcome of the appeals submitted by: 1) Sam Terry of Sparkling Clean Window

Company; and 2) Charles Adkins of CCS. Also provide an accounting of the status of all appeals filed with ASC I14 to date since its accreditation was suspended, including any communications described by any commenter/participant as a “complaint” or “appeal”. Append all related ASC I14 or IWCA interim or final decisions.

6. Describe the process by which the Committee responded to public comments received to date and

the person or persons responsible for drafting, editing and approving these responses. Append all documents that support your response. Include specifically the process associated with the responses to Mr. Adkins and Mr. Terry as shown in Appellant slides 23-27.

7. Explain how the ASC I14 has addressed any claims of dominance to date, as distinct from

balance, and as defined in the ANSI Essential Requirements, i.e., Dominance means a position or exercise of dominant authority, leadership, or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation to the exclusion of fair and equitable consideration of other viewpoints.

ASC I14 is directed to append documents that support its response, organized to correspond with each question or sub-question listed above. The ExSC Panel requires ASC I14 to respond to these questions and to provide any documentation that supports its positions within 21 calendar days or by November 3, 2015. ASC I14’s response (which shall not exceed 20 type-written pages, exclusive of documentation) will then be provided to CCS for reply (which shall not exceed 10 type-written pages, exclusive of documentation) within 21 calendar days. Thereafter, the ANSI ExSC Panel will determine the appropriate next action. Should ASC I14 fail to provide specific responses and supporting documentation to the ExSC, as was the case with this appeal, the ANSI ExSC Panel may decide to suspend or withdraw the accreditation of ASC I14. Conclusion To summarize, ASC I14’s complete response with all supporting documentation is due to ANSI on or before November 3, 2015 (21 calendar days). This response will be provided to the Appellant for review and reply. Appellant’s reply to ASC I14’s response will be due to ANSI 21 calendar days thereafter and will be given to ASC I14 for its information only. The ExSC Panel will then review these documents and issue a formal written decision to both parties at the same time.

June 11, 2012 Mr. Gary Searer Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 2550 North Hollywood Way, Suite 502 Burbank, California 91505

Mr. Roy Hereth Roy’s Window Service 3117 W 6th Street Lincoln, NE 68522

Mr. Stefan Bright IWCA Safety Director International Window Cleaning Association 400 Admiral Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64106

Dated Notice Re: ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) Appeals Panel final decision in response to two

separate appeals filed by Mr. Hereth and Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE), respectively, of the accreditation as a developer of American National Standards (ANS) of ASC I14 Window Cleaning Safety with the International Window Cleaners Association (IWCA) as Secretariat

Dear Appeals Participants: On May 10, 2011, the ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) heard the above referenced appeals. A decision dated June 1, 2011 was issued (see attached). That decision stated in relevant part, the following:

The focus of these appeals before the ANSI ExSC is ASC I14 and IWCA’s administration of the standards development process, including membership and appeals related actions or inactions, for a document entitled I14.1 Window Cleaning Safety. Based on the record before the Panel and the respondent’s oral responses to questions posed during the hearing, the Panel determined that the potential for serious procedural non-compliances exists and therefore, a Special Audit in accordance with clause 5 Audits for cause of ANSI Auditing Policy and Procedures1 is warranted. The results of the Special Audit, including a response

1 5 Audits for cause In scheduling an audit for cause (whether at its own initiative or at the request of the BSR), the ExSC shall consider all the evidence presented and make a determination whether or not an audit for cause is appropriate and when said audit should be scheduled (i.e., at the next regular audit, or a special audit). In conducting a special audit, in addition to

from ASC I14 to it, will be considered before the Panel makes a final determination in connection with these appeals.

Subsequent to the June 1, 2011 hearing, a confidential special audit of ASC I14 with IWCA as the Secretariat was undertaken. The results of that special audit and IWCA’s response to it were then reviewed by the ANSI ExSC Appeals Panel. This represents the ANSI ExSC’s final decision with respect to the appeals at issue. For the record, ANSI/IWCA I 14.1-2001 Window Cleaning Safety was administratively withdrawn on October 23, 2011 as an ANS since it had not been revised or reaffirmed within ten years from the date of its approval as an American National Standard. ANSI ExSC Appeals Decision

As a result of the Special Audit, and based on the number and severity of issues identified therein, the accreditation of ASC I14 with IWCA as its Secretariat shall be suspended effective immediately and until such time as it successfully completes the reaccreditation process to address all procedural audit findings. Once the suspension is lifted, then ASC I14 shall undergo a Special Audit of the I14.1 standard (or whatever designation is used to identify the Window Cleaning Safety standard) after the standard’s development process concludes and prior to submittal to the ANSI Board of Standards Review (BSR) for approval. Should ASC I14 choose not to develop the Window Cleaning Safety standard, then it shall so notify ANSI and the first standard developed by ASC I14 shall be subject to a Special Audit.

Accordingly ASC I14 and IWCA are required to submit revised procedures for review by the ANSI ExSC. The procedures are to be submitted to Jim Thompson (jthompso@ansi.org) in strike-through underline format with an explanation of the changes made.

Right to Appeal Please be advised that this transmission via E-mail constitutes your official notification of the decision of the ExSC. Parties to the appeals to the ANSI ExSC who believe that they have been or will be adversely affected by the results of the subject appeals are hereby notified of the right of further appeal to the ANSI Appeals Board. Should you choose to appeal to the ANSI Appeals Board, written notice of appeal and all appeals statements and supporting documentation must be filed with the Secretary of the ANSI Appeals Board (the office of the undersigned) by July 2, 2012. The appeal shall be accompanied by a $500.00 filing fee. If you require an extension for the filing of appeals materials, you must contact me as the Secretary of the ANSI Appeals Board on or before July 2, 2012, or you will forfeit your right to further appeal. The appeals statement must specify the decision from which the appeal is taken, the ANSI body that made the decision, a short statement of the matter in controversy and the reason(s) why the appellant believes the decision is in error. The appeals statement must also list all other

the regular audit procedures, the audit team would be provided with instructions specific to that audit (i.e., thorough review of a particular development committee, the development of a particular standard, a portion of the process, etc.). (See ANSI Auditing Policy and Procedures 2010)

2

3

parties that appeared before the ANSI body with respect to the matter being appealed. A copy of the ANSI Appeals Board Operating Procedures is attached for your reference. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, or if I may be of assistance to you, please contact me at (212) 642-4914 or send an E-mail to acaldas@ansi.org. Sincerely, Anne Anne Caldas Secretary ANSI Executive Standards Council cc: P. Griffin, ANSI VP & General Counsel L. Hallenbeck, ANSI VP-Accreditation Services ANSI Executive Standards Council

June 1, 2011 Mr. Gary Searer Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 2550 North Hollywood Way, Suite 502 Burbank, California 91505

Mr. Roy Hereth Roy’s Window Service 3117 W 6th Street Lincoln, NE 68522

Mr. Stefan Bright IWCA Safety Director International Window Cleaning Association 400 Admiral Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64106

Dated Notice Re: ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) decision in response to two separate appeals filed

by Mr. Hereth and Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE), respectively, of the accreditation as a developer of American National Standards (ANS) of ASC I14 Window Cleaning Safety with the International Window Cleaners Association (IWCA) as Secretariat

Dear Appeals Participants: On May 10, 2011, the ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) heard the above referenced appeal. The decision of the ANSI ExSC is attached. Please be advised that this transmission via E-mail constitutes your official notification of the decision of the ExSC. Parties to the appeals to the ANSI ExSC who believe that they have been or will be adversely affected by the results of the subject appeals are hereby notified of the right of further appeal to the ANSI Appeals Board. Should you choose to appeal to the ANSI Appeals Board, written notice of appeal and all appeals statements and supporting documentation must be filed with the Secretary of the ANSI Appeals Board (the office of the undersigned) by June 22, 2011. The appeal shall be accompanied by a $500.00 filing fee. If you require an extension for the filing of appeals materials, you must contact me as the Secretary of the ANSI Appeals Board on or before June 22, 2011, or you will forfeit your right to further appeal. The appeals statement must specify the decision from which the appeal is taken, the ANSI body that made the decision, a short statement of the matter in controversy and the

2

reason(s) why the appellant believes the decision is in error. The appeals statement must also list all other parties that appeared before the ANSI body with respect to the matter being appealed. A copy of the ANSI Appeals Board Operating Procedures is attached for your reference. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, or if I may be of assistance to you, please contact me at (212) 642-4914 or send an E-mail to acaldas@ansi.org. Sincerely, Anne Anne Caldas Secretary ANSI Executive Standards Council cc: P. Griffin, ANSI VP & General Counsel L. Hallenbeck, ANSI VP-Accreditation Services ANSI Executive Standards Council

3

ANSI EXECUTIVE STANDARDS COUNCIL (ExSC)

SUMMARY DECISION

Relating to the decision of the ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) concerning two separate appeals filed by Mr. Hereth and WJE, respectively, of the accreditation of ASC I14 Window Cleaning Safety with IWCA as Secretariat (ASC I14), as a developer of American National Standards (ANS), the ExSC, for the reasons set forth below, determined that a special audit of ASC I14 shall be undertaken before a final decision is made as to the status of ASC I14’s accreditation.

Appellant 1: Mr. Roy Hereth

Represented via teleconference by: Mr. Roy Hereth, Roy’s Window Cleaning Mr. Sam Terry, Alternate to Mr. Hereth while an ASC I14 committee member and also an IWCA past President Mr. Jim Grady, an IWCA past president and once an SPRB committee member for the I-14 Secretariat

Appellant 2: Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE)

Represented in person by: Dr. Howard Hill, WJE Mr. Gary Searers, WJE

Respondent: ASC I14 with IWCA as Secretariat

Represented in person by: Mr. Stefan Bright, Chair ASC I14 Mr. Dan Dvorak, President, IWCA Mr. John Long, ASC I14 Member

Hearing Date: May 10, 2011 Hearing Location: ANSI, Washington, DC ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) Panel Members Claire Ramspeck, Chair of Panel Neil Bogatz Scott Colburn Chris Dubay Jean-Paul Emard Rita M. Harrold John Kulick Peter Shebell Jane Wilson Don Snyder ANSI Staff Anne Caldas Patty Griffin, ANSI VP & General Counsel

4

Observers Ms. Mandie Bannwarth, IWCA Mr. Allan Burton, IWCA President-elect Mr. Dethlefs, WJE Mr. Brian Gartner, Member of the ASC I-14 Committee Dr. Howard Hill*, WJE Mr. Brian Kehoe, WJE Ms. Deb Nemec, IWCA Mr. Terrence Paret, WJE Mr. Gary Searer* Mr. Kevin Shanahan, ASTM** Mr. Sam Terry, Sparkling Clean Window Company & Surface Solutions*** *Observers for Mr. Hereth’s appeal **ANSI ExSC observer *** Observer for WJE’s appeal

ANSI EXECUTIVE STANDARDS COUNCIL (ExSC) DECISION The ANSI ExSC has considered the two appeals before it that relate to the status as an ANSI-Accredited Standards Developer of ASC I14 Window Cleaning Safety with IWCA as Secretariat (ASC I14). For the reasons that follow, the ExSC determined that a special audit1 shall be undertaken of ASC I14’s ANS-related activities, including, but not limited to, its membership records associated with the pending revision of the standard I14.1 Window Cleaning Safety. Thereafter, and in light of the outcome of the special audit, the ANSI ExSC will determine whether any action with respect to the accreditation status of ASC I14 shall be taken. 1.0 Procedural History The procedures that govern the ANS process are contained in the ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American National Standards (ANSI Essential Requirements). In addition, each ANSI-Accredited Standards Developer maintains a set of ANSI-accredited procedures that specify the implementation of its standards development processes intended to result in ANS. Accreditation by ANSI is a precondition for the submission of standards for consideration for approval as American National Standards (ANS). ASC I14, the respondent in this appeal, was accredited as a standards developer by the ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) first on May 12, 1999 and then reaccredited on October 15, 20102. IWCA serves as Secretariat to ASC I14 and is accordingly jointly accredited with the ASC I143.

1 The cost of the special audit is to be borne by ASC I14 and its Secretariat. 2 Reaccreditation is required whenever substantive changes to a developer’s accredited procedures are made. See clause 4.1.3 Maintenance of accreditation of the ANSI Essential Requirements. 3 See Annex A of the Operating Procedures of the ANSI Executive Standards Council.

5

Within the American National Standards (ANS) process, the ANSI ExSC is the accrediting body relative to standards developers, while the ANSI Board of Standards Review (BSR) is the body that approves individual standards as ANS. ASC I14 sponsors one ANS, ANSI/IWCA I14.1-2001, which was last approved as such on October 25, 2001. A public review of a revision of this standard was announced in September 2008 and concluded in October 2008. To date, this revision has not been submitted to the ANSI Board of Standards Review (BSR) for approval as an ANS. It is ASC I14’s processing of this revision and related membership and procedural issues that are the subject of the appeals before the ANSI ExSC. Two separate appeals were filed with the ANSI ExSC: 1) Mr. Hereth of Roy’s Window Service; and 2) Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE). Each appeal alleges multiple procedural irregularities with regard to ASC I14’s implementation of its ANSI-accredited procedures. As both appeals go to ASC I14’s ability to administer the ANS process in accordance with its procedures and ANSI’s requirements, and the respondent is the same, the two hearings were held in consecutive order on May 10, 2011. This decision addresses both appeals and summarizes the oral and written arguments presented to the ANSI ExSC Panel4. While this decision may not reference every argument or point made in connection with the appeal, the ExSC had full access to the complete written record. The ExSC did not evaluate any technical data or make any assessment of the merits of the technical content of any particular standards or other documents identified within the context of this appeal. The ExSC relied on the written record and oral statements made by both parties to each appeal regarding procedural matters only. 2.0 Summary of Appeals Allegations and Responses 2.1 WJE Appeal and ASC I14’s Response a. WJE Appeal WJE appealed the accreditation of ASC I14 and in its original filing requested, among other things, an audit of ASC I14’s activities. WJE asserted a range of procedural non-compliances including: 1) failure of ASC I14 and its Secretariat, IWCA, to implement properly its accredited procedures, including failure to properly and timely respond to substantive comments submitted by WJE in good faith; 2) lack of appropriate balance on task groups and the committee, i.e., ANS consensus body, noting that this is particularly important as the standard addresses structural engineering issues but lacks appropriate expertise to do so; 3) subversion of the developer-level appeals process; and 4) failure to appropriately respond to the issues raised by WJE in its appeals filing with ASC I14. In addition, WJE raised restraint-of-trade concerns in its original filing and again at the appeals hearing. WJE recounted its submittal of technical comments along with an associated chronology of events, beginning with the June 28, 2006 submittal of a 13-page summary of problems with the standard as well as proposed changes, related perceived response delays and inadequacies in said responses as well as in the subsequent draft standard issued for public comment and on which WJE submitted further comments. WJE noted that in light of the delayed, inadequate and erroneous responses received, WJE submitted a formal complaint to IWCA on June 25, 2010. Thereafter, on August 6, 2010 WJE received a response to that complaint and on August 9, 2010 notified IWCA that it wished

4 Within the context of an appeal, a Panel of at least five ANSI ExSC members is empowered to take action on behalf of the ANSI ExSC membership.

6

to continue the appeals process by having the complaint heard by an appeals panel. During the course of the appeals process, WJE also asked for documents that were not provided by IWCA. As of the date of the ANSI ExSC appeals hearing, an appeals panel at the developer level had not been convened. WJE’s concerns with ASC I14’s appeals process include the failure to form a technically competent panel and the timeliness as well as the lack of transparency in the process. b. ASC I14’s Response IWCA responded to WJE’s concerns by arguing that ASC I14 has indeed followed its procedures and that to some extent WJE misapprehends them. IWCA cites the “task group” that was formed, per ASC I14’s usual practice, to respond to WJE’s May 2005 letter, which was understood to be a request for interpretation. Next came a 13 page letter from Dr. Hill dated June 28, 2006, which contained proposed revisions to 22 sections of the 2001 published version of the standard. IWCA notes that at the time those comments were submitted, no formal action to revise the current ANS had been initiated, i.e., a PINS was not announced, nor was a draft available for public comment. Accordingly, ASC I14 was not procedurally obligated to respond to the comments as they would be if the comments were submitted during a public comment period. Nonetheless, Dr. Hill’s letter was added to the ASC I14’s September 2006 agenda and was included in the “unfinished business” section of the agenda for the next meeting to be held in April 2007. IWCA explained during the hearing and in its written material that it is not unusual for comments to be considered over multiple meetings, particularly in light of the ASC I14’s general practice of meeting once per year. Moreover, Mr. Bright, as Chair, asserted that he notified WJE that many changes had already been made to the 2001 published version of the standard, and those changes would be available in the future as a new working draft for public comment. WJE stated that they did not receive said communication and in response, IWCA noted that at the time, there was a change in “administration companies and the transition may or may not have affected” this. IWCA maintained that work on the new draft was to continue via task groups formed at the March 2008 meeting that would then submit proposed revisions to it during the upcoming public review period. One such task group offered to complete a review of the WJE 2006 letter “so as to potentially suggest any further changes to the draft during the public review and comment”, which was initiated on September 12, 2008 with a closing date of October 27, 2008. ASC I14 suggested that it is long-standing practice to establish such task groups, which are not defined in ASC I14’s procedures. According to IWCA, WJE submitted comments in response to the public review announcement of the draft standard and maintained 12 of its previous 2006 proposed revisions plus 16 new proposals for a total of 28 comments. Subsequently, in June 2010, ASC I14 responded to the public review commenters and notified them, including WJE, of the right to appeal, which WJE acted upon. IWCA maintained that WJE’s appeal did not specify the adverse effects to WJE or other users of the standard and such information is required when filing an appeal. Nonetheless, a task group was formed to respond to the appeal, but WJE was notified that more than 30 days was needed to do so. WJE acknowledged receiving a later response to the appeal but deemed it inadequate. Thus, WJE wanted the appeals process to continue and IWCA undertook discussions with WJE concerning the hearing panel and process. IWCA recounts WJE’s rejection of IWCA’s position with respect to the appeals protocol and panel, in particular that ASC I14’s procedures do not contemplate technical appeals and so a technically competent appeals panel was not required. IWCA notes that WJE eventually indicated that instead of completing the appeals process through ASC I14, it would appeal ASC I14’s accreditation to the ANSI Executive Standards Council.

7

As part of its written and oral response to WJE’s appeal before the ANSI ExSC, ASC I14 representatives highlight the efforts made over time to resolve WJE’s concerns. Further, although WJE was invited to attend ASC I14 meetings over the years – as this is viewed as a highly effective mechanism for discussing and resolving concerns - they chose not to do so. It was also noted that ASC I14’s accredited procedures do not require in-person or other meetings on any specific schedule, though it is IWCA’s contention that steady progress has been made over the course of the years since ASC I14 was accredited and since the last version of I14.1 was approved as an ANS. IWCA and ASC I14 representatives conclude that ASC I14 has followed its procedures and that rather than a failure to comply, the issue is that the committee simply disagrees with some of WJE’s positions. 2.2 Mr. Hereth’s Appeal and ASC I14’s Response a. Mr. Hereth’s Appeal Mr. Hereth filed an appeal separate from WJE; however, some concerns are shared. Mr. Hereth was a member of the ASC I14 since it was established in 1999 through April 2010. During this time period, Mr. Hereth’s official alternate, Mr. Sam Terry, frequently attended ASC I14 meetings and participated in letter ballots in this capacity. In April 2010, Mr. Hereth was removed from the ASC I14, based on his lack of participation, during a meeting at which Mr. Terry was present. Thereafter, he was notified in writing by the Committee Secretary that he was voted off the committee and had the right to appeal. Mr. Hereth asserted that he began the appeals process, submitting a 38 page complaint to IWCA on May 14, 2010 and was expecting a response to his written complaint from “IWCA (via the SPRB5)”. He noted that on June 7, 2010 he received an email inquiry from Mr. Grady, an “SPRB member representing the secretariat” and that he responded to that inquiry. That same day this process was halted because Mr. Bright stated instead that he felt it would be best to have the committee consider Mr. Hereth’s objections at their next meeting and that Mr. Hereth consider attending so that he could present his statement in person. Mr. Hereth did attend a September 2010 meeting of the ASC I14. He stated that at that time, he had accepted the decision of the committee regarding his membership. In his oral remarks at the hearing, Mr. Hereth stated that he believed a response was due to his May 14, 2010 complaint within 30 days and that said complaint constituted his appeal; he disagrees that any further submission on his part was necessary in order to conclude the appeals process via ASC I14. He stated that he believes he initiated the appeals process via ASC I14, but it did not conclude because Mr. Bright improperly intervened. During the course of his interactions with the Secretariat and related to his complaint filing with ASC I14, Mr. Hereth argues that he identified a number of procedural irregularities in the operations of ASC I14 including the following: 1) the committee has failed to follow its procedures and the Secretariat and others have acknowledged their lack of familiarity with their roles and responsibilities; 2) membership issues are treated differently based on who/which entity the member represents; 3) the Secretariat has failed to oversee the committee’s compliance with its procedures; 4) the Chair has acted inappropriately by serving in effect as a Chair and a Secretariat; and 5) the

5 SPRB is understood to mean Standards Procedural Review Board. At the hearing, Mr. Bright confirmed that the SPRB no longer exists, nor was its role ever documented in ASC I14’s procedures.

8

Secretariat failed to appropriately implement ASC I14’s appeals process. These are the issues that led to his filing an appeal of ASC I14’s accreditation with the ANSI ExSC. b. ASC I14’s Response IWCA stated that Mr. Hereth has not been an active member of ASC I14 for nearly a decade and he did not supply any documented basis for his claims against ASC I14, IWCA or Mr. Bright. Assertions related to the failure of IWCA to serve as Secretariat in an appropriate manner were also rejected. Mr. Bright recounted that prior to a meeting in 2006, he contacted Mr. Hereth to advise him that the committee might vote to remove him from the committee at that time. At that point, Mr. Hereth proposed the appointment of a permanent alternate, and in April 2006, the ASC I14 approved this request. Mr. Bright contacted him again prior to the meeting in April 2010 and recalls that Mr. Hereth agreed that it was time he was removed from the committee. ASC I14 voted to remove Mr. Hereth as a member at its March 2010 meeting and Mr. Hereth’s subsequent objection to that action was reviewed by a task group of volunteers who developed a response. Although it is not required, Mr. Hereth was invited to and did attend the September 2010 meeting of the ASC I14 in person. After a 30-40 minute discussion with Mr. Hereth, the committee voted and approved the draft response to his complaint, which was sent to him after the meeting and included the right to appeal. IWCA argues that the next appropriate step would have been for Mr. Hereth to submit a letter of appeal for response by the Secretariat; however, he did not do so. Instead he filed an appeal with ANSI of the accreditation of ASC I14. Mr. Bright noted that from 2002-2010, Mr. Hereth never made any claims of impropriety against IWCA or the committee. In addition, IWCA’s response to Mr. Hereth’s claims as now presented includes the following: 1) Neither IWCA nor the IWCA President have issued official statements that the Secretariat is unaware of its obligations to the committee or its procedures; 2) with respect to specific membership claims regarding, for example, Mr. Coleman - one example offered by Mr. Hereth of improper handling by the Secretariat in order to manipulate the ASC’s membership - he was voted on by the ASC as belonging in the General Interest category; 3) samples of minutes from 2003 reflect that committee members discussed membership practices and drafted revised procedures that were approved in 2004; 4) Mr. Hereth’s claims that members are treated differently depending on who they are/who they represent and that the committee manipulates the truth are refuted by sample meeting minutes from 2002 forward, which reflect “Personnel” discussions; 5) Mr. Hereth provided no factual basis to substantiate his claims of dominance by the Chair, and instead throughout, relies on random opinions and hearsay. IWCA concluded that “because Mr. Hereth has not been actively involved with the I-14 committee for many years, the second hand information he has been receiving is imprecise and as a result, he has assessed an inaccurate portrayal of IWCA and I-14 committee activity.” 3.0 Preliminary Analysis and Basis for Special Audit The focus of these appeals before the ANSI ExSC is ASC I14 and IWCA’s administration of the standards development process, including membership and appeals related actions or inactions, for a document entitled I14.1 Window Cleaning Safety. Based on the record before the Panel and the respondent’s oral responses to questions posed during the hearing, the Panel determined that the potential for serious procedural non-compliances exists and therefore, a Special Audit in accordance with clause 5 Audits for cause of ANSI Auditing Policy and Procedures6 is warranted. The results of

6 5 Audits for cause In scheduling an audit for cause (whether at its own initiative or at the request of the BSR), the ExSC shall consider all the evidence presented and make a determination whether or not an audit for cause is appropriate and when

9

the Special Audit, including a response from ASC I14 to it, will be considered before the Panel makes a final determination in connection with these appeals. In particular, the following evidence related to the activities underway between 1999 through the present that are intended to result in a revision of ANSI I14.1, shall be reviewed and/or prepared by an ANSI Auditor: 1. A chronology of the individuals and entities involved in the administration of the ASC I14. In

particular, what role(s) are played by the Chair versus the Secretariat and are/were there any other entities involved in ANS-related decision-making processes, including membership reviews and/or recommendations? Document how the role of each is or is not addressed within ASC I14’s procedures over time.

2. Documentation, such as meeting reports and related, to assess the role of the Chair in practice (and in accordance with ASC I14’s accredited procedures) versus the role of the Secretariat.

3. Meeting reports (including attendance) and membership records for the duration of this period; in particular, a review of the consistency in processing, fair handling and timeliness of membership actions shall be considered. This review shall include records related to all ASC I14 members and not only Mr. Hereth and Mr. Terry, his alternate.

4. Interest category definitions as well as balance on the ANS consensus body, including consistency of application of interest categories.

5. An assessment of the current ASC I14 appeals provision including whether technical appeals7 are to be offered.

6. An assessment of the appeals records including any and all appeals filed with ASC I14 (Hereth, WJE and others), regardless of whether said appeals were considered by the ASC I14 to have been properly filed or concluded.

7. To the extent that the SPRB was involved in any complaint or appeals process or played any other substantial role, including those related to Mr. Hereth’s and/or WJE’s complaints, assess its effect on the decision–making process.

8. Identify the procedures that apply to the formulation, administration and operation of sub-groups and/or task groups as defined in ASC I14’s procedures or documented in its records. To the extent such groups are identified in these appeals, assess whether they acted in a manner consistent with ASC I14’s procedures.

9. Review the timeliness of administrative actions taken by the Secretariat or other party acting on its behalf.

10. Review records related to the attempted resolution of comments and whether the handling of comments was in compliance with ASC I14’s procedures and ANSI’s requirements.

11. Analyze the language contained in ASC I14’s procedures versus implementation of key provisions over time, such as: 1) membership maintenance; 2) comment resolution; and 3) appeals.

Pending the outcome of the Special Audit, the ASC I14 ANSI accreditation will remain intact and ASC I14 is still able to submit a properly processed standard for approval as an ANS. However, the Panel encourages, as appropriate, all parties to complete the standards development process, including

said audit should be scheduled (i.e., at the next regular audit, or a special audit). In conducting a special audit, in addition to the regular audit procedures, the audit team would be provided with instructions specific to that audit (i.e., thorough review of a particular development committee, the development of a particular standard, a portion of the process, etc.). (See ANSI Auditing Policy and Procedures 2010) 7 The ANSI Essential Requirements does not require that an appeals process for the handling of technical issues be offered; however, all ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers must offer a procedural appeals process that addresses whether technical issues were afforded due process.

10

any open or unfinished appeals. If a BSR-98 submittal is made to the ANSI BSR pending the final adjudication of these appeals by the ANSI ExSC, the BSR shall be provided with a copy of this decision and will decide whether to approve or hold the BSR-9 submittal pending conclusion of the Special Audit process.

8 BSR-9 is the form that is used as a checklist to accompany evidence of consensus submitted to the ANSI BSR in support of a standard’s approval as an ANS.

Via E-mail only June 4, 2014 Sam Terry Sparkling Clean Window Company 5815 Wilcab Road Austin, Texas 78721

Mark Bennett Executive Director International Window Cleaners Association 1100-H Brandywine Blvd Zanesville, OH 43701-7303

Howard Hill Principal and Director of Technical Operations WJE Associates, Inc. 330 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062

Gwenyth Searer WJE Associate Principal WJE Associates, Inc. 330 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062

Stephen Safranek WJE General Counsel WJE Associates, Inc. 330 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, Illinois 60062

Dated Notice

Re: ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) Appeals Panel final decision in response to two

separate appeals filed by Mr. Terry and Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE), respectively, concerning the reaccreditation of ASC I14 with the International Window Cleaners Association (IWCA) as Secretariat

Dear Appeals Participants: On May 13, 2014 the ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) heard the above appeal. The decision of the ANSI ExSC follows. Please be advised that this transmission via E-mail constitutes your official notification of the decision of the ExSC. Parties to the appeal who believe that they have been or will be adversely affected by the results of the subject hearing are hereby notified of their right of further appeal to the ANSI Appeals Board. Should you choose to appeal this decision to the ANSI Appeals Board, written notice of appeal and all appeals statements and supporting documentation must be filed with the Secretary of the ANSI Appeals Board (the office of the undersigned) by June 25, 2014. The appeal shall be accompanied

2

by a check in the amount of $500.00 as a filing fee. If you require an extension for the filing of appeals materials, you must contact the Secretary of the ANSI Appeals Board on or before June 25, 2014, or you will forfeit your right to further appeal. The appeals statement must specify the decision from which the appeal is taken, the ANSI body that made the decision, a short statement of the matter in controversy and the reason(s) why the Appellant believes the decision is in error. The appeals statement must also list all other parties that appeared before the ANSI body with respect to the matter being appealed. A copy of the ANSI Appeals Board Operating Procedures is attached to the E-mail that transmitted this decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, or if I may be of assistance to you, please contact me at (212) 642-4914 or send an E-mail to acaldas@ansi.org. Sincerely, Anne Anne Caldas Secretary ANSI Executive Standards Council cc: Stefan Bright, Chair ASC I14 Jack Evans, Past President, IWCA

Patricia Griffin, ANSI VP & General Counsel Lane Hallenbeck, ANSI VP Accreditation Services Mark Reinhart, President IWCA

ANSI Executive Standards Council

3

ANSI EXECUTIVE STANDARDS COUNCIL (ExSC) SUMMARY DECISION

In response to two separate appeals filed by Sam Terry of Sparkling Clean Windows and Wiss, Janney, Elstner & Associates, Inc. (WJE), respectively, with the ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) in connection with the reaccreditation of ASC I14 Window Cleaning Safety with International Window Cleaning Association (IWCA) as Secretariat (ASC I14), the ANSI ExSC denies the appeals. I. Appellant via teleconference: Sparkling Clean Windows

Represented by: Sam Terry, CEO II. Appellant via teleconference: WJE & Associates, Inc. (WJE)

Represented by: Howard Hill, WJE Principal and Director of Technical Operations Gwenyth Searer, WJE Associate Principal Stephen Safranek, WJE General Counsel

Respondent in person: ASC I14 with IWCA as Secretariat Represented by: Stefan Bright, Chair ASC I14

Jack Evans, Past President, IWCA Mark Reinhart, President IWCA

Hearing Date: May 13, 2014 Hearing Location: NFPA, Quincy, Massachusetts ANSI Executive Standards Council Panel Neil Bogatz, Chair Scott Colburn Kerri Conn Mary Donaldson Chris Dubay Jessica Evans

Rita Harrold David Johnson Veronica Lancaster Greg Orloff Gary Robinson Jen Rodgers

Observers Mark Bennett, CAE, IOM, Executive Director, International Window Cleaning Association Appellants observed each other’s appeal

4

I. Procedural History ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) I14, the Respondent in this appeal, was accredited as a standards developer by the ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) on May 12, 1999 and was reaccredited on October 15, 2010. IWCA serves as Secretariat to ASC I14 and is jointly accredited by ANSI with the committee. ASC I14 sponsored ANSI/IWCA I14.1-2001 Window Cleaning Safety, which was approved as an American National Standard (ANS) on October 25, 2001. In 2011, two accreditation related appeals were filed with the ANSI ExSC, including one by WJE, challenging the manner in which ASC 114 processed proposed revisions to this standard and alleging multiple procedural irregularities with regard to ASC I14’s implementation of its ANSI-accredited procedures. Hearings were held in May 10, 2011 and a decision was issued by the ExSC on June 1, 2011 (2011 Decision) in which the ExSC found “serious procedural non-compliances” warranting a Special Audit of ASC 114 in accordance with Clause 5 Audits for cause, of the ANSI Auditing Policy and Procedures. ANSI/IWCA I14.1-2001 was administratively withdrawn later that year because it was not revised or reaffirmed by the 10th anniversary of its approval as an ANS. In accordance with the 2011 Decision, a Special Audit of ASC I14 was then undertaken in which numerous additional and persistent problems were identified. Accordingly, in a decision, dated June 11, 2012 (2012 Decision), the ExSC suspended the accreditation of ASC I14 until such time as the developer successfully completed the reaccreditation process to address all of the procedural audit findings. To that end, the ExSC required that ASC I14 and IWCA submit revised procedures for review by the ANSI ExSC which were to address and remedy the procedural irregularities identified in the Special Audit. The ExSC also determined that, once the suspension was lifted, the ASC I14 would undergo a Special Audit of the I14.1 standard (or whatever designation is used to identify the anticipated Window Cleaning Safety standard) after the standard’s development process concluded and prior to submittal of that standard to the ANSI Board of Standards Review (BSR) for approval. In accordance with the 2012 Decision, ASC I14 submitted revised procedures which were published for public review. Both of the appellants to this appeal submitted public comments objecting to the revised procedures and those comments were addressed by ASC I14 to the satisfaction of the ExSC. In a decision, dated October 18, 2013 (2013 Decision), the ExSC approved ASC I14’s reaccreditation under the newly-revised procedures and the suspension was lifted. ASC 114 has not yet submitted for Special Audit the anticipated I14.1 standard but will presumably do so after the standard’s development process concludes and prior to submittal to the ANSI Board of Standards Review (BSR) for approval in accordance with the ExSC’s 2012 Decision. In early 2013, two separate appeals of the ANSI ExSC’s decision to reaccredit were filed with the ExSC by Mr. Terry and WJE. As noted, both Appellants filed public comments during the requisite public comment period and were provided a response by ASC I14, all of which was reviewed by the ExSC prior to its decision to reaccredit. As detailed below, each Appellant objects to certain provisions contained in ASC I14’s procedures, ASC I14’s response to their respective public comments and, in some cases, to ASC I14’s anticipated implementation of some of the revisions. For the reasons that follow, the Panel determines that the appeals be dismissed as the arguments rehash the same ones raised during the public review process and/or are premature insofar as they anticipate that ASC I14 will fail to implement its new procedures without giving the developer the opportunity to demonstrate compliance.

5

II. Appellants’ Objections

In his appeal, Mr. Terry raises several concerns about ASC I14’s October 2013 procedures including whether: 1) the new requirement that consensus body members have expertise should be removed; 2) clause 5.1.3 Consideration should be removed and replaced with one that requires an individual’s classification to be based on his/her material/financial interest in the standard, not expertise, thereby resulting in proper classification and balance; 3) the authority to determine interest categories should be held solely by the Secretariat and the interest categories should be revised to safeguard against dominance; 4) section 6 Subcommittees should revert to prior language as “task groups” and the like should not be allowed; 5) full meeting agendas with related documentation must be available to interested parties at least 30 days prior to meetings, i.e., a draft agenda or “outline” is not sufficient; 6) the revisions to 13 Appeals are unacceptable in terms of differing timeframes; and 7) text addressing “Further appeal” to ANSI was incorrectly deleted. Mr. Terry urges ANSI to instruct ASC I14 to revise the procedures to address his stated concerns. For its part, WJE maintains that ASC I14’s reaccredited procedures should be rejected as insufficient and that the ExSC should overturn its decision on the basis, among others, that: 1) with respect to the ANS consensus body, no requirement exists for representation by members with engineering expertise; 2) the revised interest categories do not promote balance, diversity and competence, but instead make it easier to stack the Committee with like-minded people; 3) to be consistent with the ANSI Essential Requirements, the ASC I14 procedures must include provisions for providing complete agendas, including attachments and referenced documents, to all interested parties prior to meetings; 4) the procedures that address requests for interpretations are inadequate as they do not provide a timeline by which a response will be issued; 5) no mandatory response time is given for responses to comments that are submitted outside of a public comment period, nor any rules regarding how such comments will be addressed; 6) the revisions to 13 Appeals are unacceptable in terms of differing timeframes, panel selection, recourse, and in their failure to address “inaction”; 7) the procedures do not provide for a technical appeal; and 8) the proposed Code of Ethics is inadequate. WJE suggests as a remedy to their appeal that any future standards developed by ASC I14 be free of engineering provisions. In addition, WJE suggests that ASC I14’s revised procedures are not unequivocal on some key points and as a result, cannot guarantee necessary due process safeguards. ASC I14 relies on its prior response to appellants’ public review comments, noting that the ANSI ExSC already reviewed and approved the ASC I14’s revised procedures with full knowledge of these objections. III. Decision of the ANSI ExSC1 The ExSC agrees with ASC I14 that most of the objections raised by appellants on this appeal are ones that were raised and addressed as part of the public review process. The ExSC already decided in its 2013 Decision that ASC 114’s newly-revised procedures were adequate – notwithstanding these objections - to clear the way for the developer’s reaccreditation. The ExSC also notes that some of these objections are anticipatory in nature and can only be addressed through fair and proper 1 This decision summarizes the key oral and written arguments presented to the ExSC. While this decision may not reference every argument or point made in connection with the appeal, the ExSC had full access to and considered the complete record. The ExSC does not evaluate any technical data or make any assessment of the merits of the technical content of the proposed standard or any other matter. The ExSC relied on the written record and oral statements made by all parties regarding procedural matters only. The ExSC also declines to issue specific written rulings as requested by WJE, in favor of this decision, which represents the ExSC’s findings.

6

assessment of how the revised procedures are ultimately implemented by ASC 114. Since this has not happened yet, there is no ripe controversy for the ExSC to address with respect to such arguments. For these reasons both appeals are dismissed. The Panel reminds all parties that as a consequence of the ExSC’s 2012 appeals decision, which resulted in ASC I14’s suspension pending reaccreditation, ASC I14 is still subject to a special audit of the I14.1 standard (or whatever designation is used to identify the Window Cleaning Safety standard)2 after the standard’s development process concludes and prior to submittal to the ANSI Board of Standards Review (BSR) for approval. Upon conclusion of this next special audit, and in light of its findings, ASC I14’s accreditation status will again be reviewed by the ExSC and the ExSC will then decide whether to reaffirm, suspend or withdraw ASC I14’s accreditation and the standard will or will not proceed to the BSR for consideration as an American National Standard (ANS). Thus, the bar has already been set and it is ASC I14’s implementation of the recently reaccredited procedures that will determine whether this standards development activity and any resulting standard will succeed. IV. Guidance to the Parties

Although the appeals are dismissed, the ExSC provides the following guidance to all parties in order to clarify potential misconceptions and to assist ASC I14 in its implementation of its newly-revised procedures: 1. Openness: Nothing in the ANSI Essential Requirements precludes an application and selection process that allows a potential member to select his/her interest category, which may vary by standard, or that considers of applicant’s expertise. 2. Agendas/Subcommittees: Complete agendas with all referenced documents are not required to be provided to all interested parties in advance of a meeting; but a copy of a draft agenda, i.e., an outline of the topics to be discussed, is to be made available to all interested parties. 3. With regard to “subcommittees” as defined in ASC I14’s procedures, such structures have long been a part of many consensus processes and so on its face, the ExSC has no basis upon which to disallow such a provision. 4. Appeals: ANSI’s procedures do not require that technical appeals be offered or that a specific minimum filing period be afforded a would-be appellant. ANSI does require that appeals of inactions be addressed and the ExSC notes that section 13 Appeals acknowledges this. In relation to the deletion of text that addresses future appeals to ANSI, it is ANSI’s appeals procedures, not ASC I14’s, that govern the way an appeal is to be filed and so ANSI generally suggests that all ASDs remove such language. 5. Time Periods: Calendar days or work days should be used uniformly throughout the procedures. To the extent ASC I14’s procedures use calendar days for some purposes and working days for others, ASC I14 should choose one and revise its procedures accordingly. 6. Implementation Guidelines: All relevant documents concerning a developer’s procedures that relate to the approval and maintenance of ANS are required to be submitted to the ExSC. Therefore, 2 Should ASC I14 choose not to develop the Window Cleaning Safety standard, then it shall so notify ANSI and the first standard developed by ASC I14 shall be subject to a Special Audit.

7

the ExSC strongly encourages ASC 114 to submit within 15 working days of receipt of this decision, the “written 6-page implementation and maintenance program” referenced throughout its responses. The ExSC will review this document, and if appropriate, include it as part of ASC I14’s accreditation file or advise ASC I14 of any attendant concerns or suggestions. Conclusion The ExSC finds that each of the Appellants fails to argue successfully that ASC I14’s recently reaccredited procedures are out of compliance with the ANSI Essential Requirements. Evidence of implementation of ASC I14’s reaccredited procedures in relation to the development of a future window cleaning safety standard will be reviewed by the ANSI Board of Standards Review (BSR) if and when a candidate standard is submitted to ANSI and if the documentation reflects compliance such that the requisite special audit process concludes successfully.

Attachment B

Excerpted for reference, from the ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American National Standards (2016) www.ansi.org/essentialrequirements 4.1.4 Withdrawal of accreditation The ExSC may advise and request any accredited standards developer to take corrective action if the conditions upon which accreditation was granted are not maintained. If such action is not taken within the time period designated, the ExSC shall provide at least a thirty day notice to the standards developer stating that, unless specified conditions are corrected, its accreditation and the approval of all American National Standards under all affected accreditations shall be withdrawn. Unless the necessary corrective actions are taken within the specified period, the ExSC shall withdraw the accreditation and approval of all affected American National Standards sponsored by the developer. The standards developer shall be notified of withdrawal of the accreditation and a notice shall appear in Standards Action.