Defense Trade Advisory GroupSingle License Form

Plenary SessionNovember 9, 2011

1

2

• Lisa Bencivenga, Co-Chair, Lisa Bencivenga, LLC• Joy Speicher, Co-Chair, Space Systems/Loral Inc.• Gregory Bourn, Finmeccanica North America• Rebecca Conover, Intel Corporation• Jeremy Huffman, Huffman Riley Kao• Spencer Leslie, Tyco International• Beth Mersch, Northrop Grumman Corporation• Roger Mustian, Daniel Defense, Inc.• Tom White, Lockheed Martin Corporation

Working Group 3 Members

3

Tasking by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls

• DDTC Provided the DTAG with the “Draft Single License Form Proposal as of 8/31/2011”

• Working Group #3 Assignment:– Review and provide comments on the Draft Single License

Form proposed to replace existing State, Treasury, and Commerce License applications to determine if the form:

• Accommodates all information potentially required,• Flows in a way which is consistent with an easy submission in

terms of order, and• Captures the information required to support automation for the

purposes of reporting, search, etc.– If the draft form is considered insufficient, the working

group should recommend any changes required for consideration by the interagency.

4

DTAG Strategy & Approach

• Review Tasking and Proposed Form– Sought clarification & dialog with DDTC

• Analyze USG Proposed Form against current licenses (Created License Matrix)

• Identify USG-prepared reports (Created Reporting Matrix)

• Test USG Proposed Form & DTAG Revised Form

• Provide recommendations and feedback to DDTC

5

DTAG Assumptions

• Electronic decrementing will be addressed outside of this review activity.

• Deployment of the Single Form– Initially, Form will be deployed in each existing system

independently (e.g., D-Trade2, SNAP-R)• No changes to data rights employed by each independent

system (SNAP-R will continue requiring CIN & PIN; DDTC will still require E.O. and digital certificates)

– Ultimate goal – single form deployed in a single electronic system or portal

– US Exports would continue to be used by the USG (not industry) for case management adjudication

6

Scope of Single Form

Not in-scope at this time

• DSP-94 (FMS)• Form BIS-645P/ ATF-

4522/ DSP-53 (International Import Certificate)

• Jurisdiction and Classification (CJ & CCATS)

• Encryption Registration & Classification Request

• Other agencies (DoE, NRC, FDA, ATF, etc.)

Areas for consideration

• ITAR Brokering• 123.9 Re-export &

Retransfer, Change in End-Use/-User

Authorizations Covered under single form

• DSPs: -5, -61, -73,• Amendments: DSPs-6,

-62, -74• Classified (DSP-85) • Agreements• BIS-748P• OFAC Authorizations

7

DTAG Recommendations (Summary)

Fully supportive of Single Form concept ; recommend a new name for the 21st Century

1.Logic-based deployment• Enhances the Licensing Process

2.Re-organize flow for ease of data entry3.Identification of Additions, Revisions, and Deletions4.DSP-85 & Classified Transactions

• Develop a strategy and handle with care5.Continue Dialog

• Gap analysis of “current” vs. “proposed”• Joint Government/Industry Participation

8

Strategy: Analyze USG Proposed License Form vs. Current License Forms

• DTAG created the License Matrix– Helped identify common (and unique) data elements– Highlighted fields on current forms that were not included

on USG proposed single form– Working document intended to facilitate further analysis

by USG• Flag unusual/rare/uncommon requirements

– Treat as the exception not the rule• Lead to Suggestions, Additions, Revisions, Deletions,

and Questions to Proposed Form

Note: DTAG analysis did not include review of foreign license forms for comparison

9

USG Proposed FormProposed Single Form DTAG Comments Rationale/Comment DSP-5 SNAP-R DSP-73

1. US Applicant Information Revise Applicant may not always be US 5 x 5

2.U.S. Government POC familiar with the transaction

Concur   6 x 10b

3 Unique Identifier(s) ConcurAuto-populate fields as appropriate.

x x x

4 Type of Submission Concur Restructure section & add options x x x

5. Description of Transaction Concur Except amendments x x x

6.Hardware, Software, Technology, Services or Other Description

ConcurOnce selected, form pre-populates possible sections.

x x x

7. Purpose of AuthorizationConcur (see comments)

This info will drive application customization

x x x

8.Transaction Description Including End-Use Statement

Concur   x x x

9. Licensing History Concur   x x x

10. Parties to the Transaction Concur   x x x

11.Additional Info to Support License App (depending on selection above)

Concur x x x

12.Authorized electronic signature, title of responsible official, date

ConcurAssume info will populate based on login of applicants when applicable

22 x x

13.Signature of Individual Lodging Authorization, name/title, company, etc.

Concur (see comments)

Auto-populate based on individual authentication built into the system, or text field with write-in capability.

x x x

14 Post Approval Actions Concur x x

10

USG Proposed Single Form Application Flow

1-US Applicant 2-U.S. Government Point of Contact 3-Unique Identifier(s) 4-Type of Submission

5-Description of Transaction

6-Hardware, Software, Technology, Services or

Other Description

7--Purpose of Authorization

8-Complete Transaction Description Including A

Comprehensive End-Use Statement

9-Licensing History 10-Parties to the Transaction

11-Additional Information to Support the License Application (depending on selection

above):

12-Authorized electronic signature, title of responsible

official, date

13-Signature of Individual Lodging

Authorization, name/title of individual,

company, date

14-Post Approval Actions

11

DTAG Single Form Application Flow

12

DTAG Proposed FormNew Old

Proposed Single Form Rationale DSP-5 SNAP-R DSP-73

1.0 N/A [Select State, Commerce, Treasury] Assumes single portal deployment      

2.0 4 Type of Submission Restructure section & add options x x x

2.1 5 Description of Transaction x x x

2.2 7 • Purpose of AuthorizationThis info will drive application customization

x x x

3.0 1 Applicant Information Applicant may not always be US 5 x 5

3.1 3 • Unique Identifier(s) Auto-populate fields as appropriate. x x x

4.0 6Hardware, Software, Technology, Services or Other Description

Once selected, form pre-populates possible sections.

x x x

5.0 8Transaction Description Including A Comprehensive End-Use Statement

  x x x

6.0 9 Licensing History   x x x

7.0 10 Parties to the Transaction   x x x

8.0 11 Add’l Info to Support License App   x x x

9.0 12Authorized electronic signature, title of responsible official, date

Info will populate based on applicant login (if possible)

22 x x

9.0 13Signature of Individual Lodging Authorization, name/title, company, etc.

Validate authentication in system x x x

9.1 2• U.S. Government POC familiar with the transaction

  6 x 10b

10.0 14. Post-approval actions   x   x

13

DTAG Recommendations On Benefits of Reorganized Workflow

• Ease of licensing and review process with single form which benefits both industry and USG

• Enables (facilitates) logic-based deployment– Increase standardization (saves time & money)– Minimize errors– Fewer/reduced RWAs & corrections– Reduced inapplicable license application fields

14

DTAG Recommendations On Logic-Based Deployment

• Applicant provides key information (e.g., USG agency, type of application, transaction description, purpose)– Auto-fill of applicant info based on login– Form only shows relevant fields based on information provided

• Enable and/or retain “Duplicate” or “Template” functionality for repeat & similar transactions

• Automated logic-based review and staffing of applications– Manual changes can be implemented by licensing officer

• Linkage of amendments and changes directly to the affected authorization– Ideally, applicant can retrieve current authorization in the

system and propose changes to the existing form• System capable of generating reports for both industry and

government

15

DTAG Recommendations on Logic-Based Deployment

• Without Logic-Based Deployment . . . Broad-brush approach (Static form)

– Causes confusion – Negates the benefits (from prior chart)– No one wants a manual/guideline to interpret what

goes in what field when it isn’t intuitive (costly, not timely)

– Inefficient to ask for info that isn’t directly relevant

16

DTAG Recommendations Modifications to Proposed Single Form

• Additions– Amendment-related fields– Proviso/condition reconsideration– Financial institutions (for OFAC applications)

• Revisions– Unclassified vs. classified– Dual/third country nationals (separate entry from foreign parties)

• Deletions– Manufacturer and Source of Commodity– LO/CLO CPI Info and Checklist– Some applicant or party info (phone, email, fax, website)

Note: Details are contained in the License Matrix

17

DTAG Recommendations Additions & Revisions to Proposed Form

• Amendments (added fields & linkage to authorization being amended)– Added fields to identify fields in current authorization

requiring change/update & purpose or reason for change• Dual/Third Country Nationals (revise & move)

– In proposed form, this is a role of a foreign party, but info require for dual/third nationals is different than other foreign parties

– Separate treatment on form can • Differentiate employee nationality from physical location• Allow multiple countries of nationality without repeating

employee information

18

DTAG Recommendations Additions & Revisions to Proposed Form

• Disclosure/Compliance Case (revise)– Unclear what disclosure on a “similar” item means– Revised to reflect language used in current forms &

added fields for compliance case number and optional upload of DDTC (or USG) Acknowledgement letter

• Proviso/Condition Reconsideration (add)– Separate form field can facilitate routing/staffing, – Link directly to affected authorization, and – Allow reporting so that industry is not charged by DTC

for these types of requests.

19

• Delete the proposed LO/CLO Certification Requirement from the Single License Form– Involves a very small percentage of applications– Recommend closer coordination between DoD and

applicants to which this applies– Should be in a document attachment

• What is LO/CLO, CPI & AT?– LO/CLO = Low Observable / Counter Low Observable (aka

stealth)– CPI = Critical Program Information– AT = Anti-Tamper (i.e. prevent /delay exploitation of

critical technologies)

DTAG Recommendations Deletions to Proposed Form

20

• Current DOD Practice:– All licenses and agreements must certify if the request involves the

transfer of LO/CLO “systems, techniques, technologies, or capabilities described in DODI-S-5230.28”

• Concerns (justification for deletion):– DODI-S-5230.28 is a classified SECRET document– Requirement to certify establishes an unnecessary “need-to-know”

for every DDTC registered applicant– Majority of DDTC registered companies do not have the necessary

security clearances– CPI assessments are classified / applicants (e.g., sub-contractors)

would not know if system had CPI– Unknowingly the response to certification questions may be

classified– Embedding DoD release policy into a legally binding State

regulatory document is not appropriate

DTAG Recommendations Deletions to Proposed Form

21

• DSP-85 Licenses – No classified attachments

• Single form and single system could be deployed• Risk of contamination is no different than current

system that allows upload of DSP-5 and Agreements• Add a prominent warning for applicants during the

process of uploading supporting documents.

– With classified attachments• It is better to keep this in a separate system (currently

used)

DTAG Recommendations DSP-85 Classified Licenses

22

• Able to identify various gaps by comparing proposed data fields vs. current data fields, etc.• Fields Currently Required on License Applications

but not included on Proposed Single License Form (DTAG concurs - not needed)– Applicant identification as Exporter, Manufacturer, or

Broker– Port/date of export/import from/to US– Others (see License Matrix)

• Recommend Industry and USG continue gap analysis with BIS and OFAC authorizations (some identified, but not all)

DTAG RecommendationsContinue Gap Analysis Using License Matrix

23

DTAG Recommendations Deployment

• Create and publish on the DDTC Website a deployment plan and schedule– Work with Industry in tandem with USG– Allow Time for Industry to develop interfaces

required• Publish the Application Programming Interface (API) or

other interface specifications allowing companies to develop or modify the front-end interfaces to the USG system(s)

24

DTAG RecommendationsUSG Reporting Requirements

• Created a USG-prepared Reports Matrix• General comments

– Elements required in reports appear to be obtained from license applications and other USG systems (e.g., AES)

• Recommendation: Once single form is finalized, confirm that USG can still obtain same information needed for reporting

25

• Possible Names (with a little humor…)• ERL – Export Reform License• EARL – Export Administration Reform License• SNAPPIER – Single New Application Procedure

Proficiently Implementing Export Reform• SEL – Single Export License• SLA – Single License Application. . . . looking for suggestions . . .

DTAG RecommendationsName for Single License Form

26

DTAG RecommendationsContinue Dialog

27

DTAG Conclusions

• DTAG Membership agreement to:– Single Form (for most transactions)– Deployment Plan & Schedule

• Allow time for industry to update its tools and train its people (publish API or interface specification)

• Deploy in State, then Commerce, then Treasury– Consider deployment with ATF and other agencies once initial

deployment is completed

– Eventually, a single portal would be ideal• Consider a single user authentication methodology (e.g., one

digital certificate and different user rights based on licensing agency)

• Create reporting capabilities in the system for both government and applicants