Transcript Defense Trade Advisory Group Single License Form Plenary Session November 9, 2011

Defense Trade Advisory Group
Single License Form
Plenary Session
November 9, 2011
1
Working Group 3 Members
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
2
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.
3
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
4
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
5
Scope of Single Form
Authorizations Covered
under single form
• DSPs: -5, -61, -73,
• Amendments: DSPs-6, 62, -74
• Classified (DSP-85)
• Agreements
• BIS-748P
• OFAC Authorizations
Areas for consideration
• ITAR Brokering
• 123.9 Re-export &
Retransfer, Change in
End-Use/-User
Not in-scope at this time
• DSP-94 (FMS)
• Form BIS-645P/ ATF4522/ DSP-53
(International Import
Certificate)
• Jurisdiction and
Classification (CJ &
CCATS)
• Encryption Registration
& Classification
Request
• Other agencies (DoE,
NRC, FDA, ATF, etc.)
6
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 entry
3. Identification of Additions, Revisions, and Deletions
4. DSP-85 & Classified Transactions
• Develop a strategy and handle with care
5. Continue Dialog
• Gap analysis of “current” vs. “proposed”
• Joint Government/Industry Participation
7
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
8
USG Proposed Form
Proposed Single Form
1.
DTAG Comments
US Applicant Information
U.S. Government POC familiar
with the transaction
Revise
3
Unique Identifier(s)
Concur
4
Type of Submission
Concur
5.
Description of Transaction
Hardware, Software,
Technology, Services or Other
Description
2.
6.
Rationale/Comment
Applicant may not always be US
DSP-5
SNAP-R DSP-73
5
x
5
6
x
10b
x
x
x
Restructure section & add options
x
x
x
Concur
Except amendments
x
x
x
Concur
Once selected, form pre-populates
possible sections.
x
x
x
This info will drive application
customization
x
x
x
Concur
Auto-populate fields as appropriate.
7.
Purpose of Authorization
Concur (see
comments)
8.
Transaction Description
Including End-Use Statement
Concur
x
x
x
9.
Licensing History
Concur
x
x
x
10.
Parties to the Transaction
Additional Info to Support
License App (depending on
selection above)
Authorized electronic signature,
title of responsible official, date
Signature of Individual Lodging
Authorization, name/title,
company, etc.
Post Approval Actions
Concur
x
x
x
Concur
x
x
x
22
x
x
x
x
x
11.
12.
13.
14
Concur
Concur (see
comments)
Concur
Assume info will populate based on
login of applicants when applicable
Auto-populate based on individual
authentication built into the system,
or text field with write-in capability.
x
9
x
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
10
DTAG Single Form Application Flow
1 - Select State,
Commerce, OFAC
(done automatically
with initial deployment
of single license form)
2 - Description of
Transaction, Purpose of
Authorization
(original boxes 4,5, 7)
9 - USG Point of Contact
Familiar with the
transaction (original
box 2)
4 - Hardware, Software,
Technology, Services or
Other Description
(original box 6)
-Include
Classified/Unclassified?
(original box 1 & 3)
6 - Licensing History
7 - Parties to the
Transaction
8 – Additional Info for
Upload
(original box 10)
(original box 11)
5 - Complete
Transaction Description
- End-Use Statement
- ID commodity, qty,
value, etc.
(original box 8)
3 - Applicant (include
auto-filled unique
identifiers where
possible)
(original box 9)
10 - Authorized
electronic signature,
title
(original box 12 & 13)
11 - Post Approval
Actions
(original box 14)
11
DTAG Proposed Form
New
Old
1.0
N/A
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.0
3.1
Proposed Single Form
Rationale
[Select State, Commerce, Treasury]
Assumes single portal deployment
4
Type of Submission
Restructure section & add options
5
Description of Transaction
7
• Purpose of Authorization
1
3
DSP-5
SNAP-R
DSP-73
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Applicant Information
This info will drive application
customization
Applicant may not always be US
5
x
5
• Unique Identifier(s)
Auto-populate fields as appropriate.
x
x
x
Once selected, form pre-populates
possible sections.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6.0
9
Hardware, Software, Technology,
Services or Other Description
Transaction Description Including A
Comprehensive End-Use Statement
Licensing History
7.0
10
Parties to the Transaction
x
x
x
8.0
11
Add’l Info to Support License App
Authorized electronic signature, title of
Info will populate based on applicant
responsible official, date
login
(if possible)
Signature of Individual Lodging
Validate authentication in system
Authorization, name/title, company, etc.
• U.S. Government POC familiar with
the transaction
Post-approval actions
x
x
x
22
x
x
x
x
x
6
x
10b
4.0
5.0
9.0
9.0
9.1
6
8
12
13
2
10.0 14.
x
x
12
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
13
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
14
DTAG Recommendations
on Logic-Based Deployment
• Without Logic-Based Deployment . . . Broadbrush 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
15
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
16
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
17
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.
18
DTAG Recommendations
Deletions to Proposed Form
• 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)
19
DTAG Recommendations
Deletions to Proposed Form
• 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
20
DTAG Recommendations
DSP-85 Classified Licenses
• 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)
21
DTAG Recommendations
Continue Gap Analysis Using License Matrix
• 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)
22
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)
23
DTAG Recommendations
USG 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
24
DTAG Recommendations
Name for Single License Form
• 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 . . .
25
DTAG Recommendations
Continue Dialog
Coordinate with Commerce
PECSEA
Coordinate with OFAC
• They are reviewing single form too
• Obtain more expertise regarding the OFAC licensing
requirements, data fields, process
Coordinate with IT Experts:
Engage industry &
government export/import
early in the process
• Recommend joint industry & government committee to
develop system requirements, elements, structure, etc.
• Benchmark similar systems
Coordinate and Confirm
Industry-wide consistency in
data elements that were not
addressed
• Create Part 130 reporting template
26
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
27