Defense Trade Advisory Group Single License Form Plenary

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

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-Trade 2, 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-748 P • 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-645 P/ ATF 4522/ DSP-53 (International Import Certificate) • Jurisdiction and Classification (CJ & CCATS) • Encryption Registration & Classification Request • Other agencies (Do. E, NRC, FDA, ATF, etc. ) 6

DTAG Recommendations (Summary) Fully supportive of Single Form concept ; recommend a new name for the 21 st 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. 2. DTAG Comments US Applicant Information Revise U. S. Government POC familiar Concur with the transaction Rationale/Comment DSP-5 SNAP-R DSP-73 Applicant may not always be US 5 x 5 6 x 10 b x x x Auto-populate fields as appropriate. 3 Unique Identifier(s) Concur 4 Type of Submission Concur Restructure section & add options x x x 5. Description of Transaction Hardware, Software, Technology, Services or Other Description Concur Except amendments x x x Concur Once selected, form pre-populates possible sections. x x x 6. 7. Purpose of Authorization Concur (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 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 22 x x x 11. 12. 13. 14 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) -Include Classified/Unclassified? 3 - Applicant (include auto-filled unique identifiers where possible) (original box 1 & 3) 4 - Hardware, Software, Technology, Services or Other Description (original box 6) 6 - Licensing History (original box 9) 7 - Parties to the Transaction (original box 10) 8 – Additional Info for Upload (original box 11) 10 - Authorized electronic signature, title (original box 12 & 13) 11 - Post Approval Actions (original box 14) 5 - Complete Transaction Description - End-Use Statement - ID commodity, qty, value, etc. (original box 8) 9 - USG Point of Contact Familiar with the transaction (original box 2) 11

DTAG Proposed Form Rationale DSP-5 SNAP-R DSP-73 [Select State, Commerce, Treasury] Assumes single portal deployment 4 Type of Submission Restructure section & add options x x x 5 Description of Transaction x x x 7 • Purpose of Authorization This info will drive application customization x x x 1 Applicant Information Applicant may not always be US 5 x 5 3 • Unique Identifier(s) Auto-populate fields as appropriate. x x x Hardware, Software, Technology, Services or Other Description Transaction Description Including A Comprehensive End-Use Statement Once selected, form pre-populates possible sections. x x x New Old 1. 0 N/A 2. 0 2. 1 2. 2 3. 0 3. 1 4. 0 5. 0 6 8 Proposed Single Form 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 Authorized electronic signature, title of responsible official, date Signature of Individual Lodging Authorization, name/title, company, etc. • U. S. Government POC familiar with the transaction Info will populate based on applicant login (if possible) 22 x x Validate authentication in system x x x 6 x 10 b Post-approval actions x x 9. 0 9. 1 12 13 2 10. 0 14. 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 Do. D 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 Do. D 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 Coordinate with IT Experts: Engage industry & government export/import early in the process • They are reviewing single form too • Obtain more expertise regarding the OFAC licensing requirements, data fields, process • Recommend joint industry & government committee to develop system requirements, elements, structure, etc. • Benchmark similar systems Coordinate and Confirm Industry-wide consistency in • Create Part 130 reporting template data elements that were not addressed 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