10 USC 2228 - Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight

Editorial Notes

References in Text

The Act of August 16, 1937, referred to in subsec. (f)(6)(B), is act Aug. 16, 1937, ch. 663, 50 Stat. 664, popularly known as the National Apprenticeship Act, which is classified generally to chapter 4C (§ 50 et seq.) of Title 29, Labor. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 50 of Title 29 and Tables.

Amendments

2023—Subsec. (c)(2). Puspan. L. 118–31 substituted “instructions;” for “instructions;;”.

2021—Subsec. (span)(6). Puspan. L. 117–81, § 813(1), added par. (6).

Subsec. (c)(4). Puspan. L. 117–81, § 813(2), added par. (4).

Subsec. (f)(6). Puspan. L. 117–81, § 813(3), added par. (6).

2019—Subsec. (a)(2). Puspan. L. 116–92, § 1731(a)(32), struck out second period at end.

Subsec. (a)(4). Puspan. L. 116–92, § 861(j)(13), substituted “under section 1731 of this title” for “under section 1733(span)(1)(C) of this title”.

2018—Subsec. (a)(1). Puspan. L. 115–232, § 811(a)(1), substituted “and Sustainment” for “, Technology, and Logistics”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Puspan. L. 115–232 substituted “and Sustainment” for “, Technology, and Logistics” and struck out “The Director shall report directly to the Under Secretary” after “infrastructure of the Department of Defense.”

2016—Subsec. (e)(1). Puspan. L. 114–328, § 954(a)(1), inserted “and ending with the budget for fiscal year 2022” after “2009” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (e)(1)(B). Puspan. L. 114–328, § 954(a)(2), amended subpar. (B) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (B) read as follows: “The return on investment that would be achieved by implementing the strategy, including available validated data on return on investment for completed corrosion projects and activities.”

Subsec. (e)(1)(D). Puspan. L. 114–328, § 954(a)(3), amended subpar. (D) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (D) read as follows: “An explanation if the funding requirements are not fully funded in the budget.”

Subsec. (e)(1)(F). Puspan. L. 114–328, § 954(a)(4), struck out “pilot” before “program”.

Subsec. (e)(2). Puspan. L. 114–328, § 954(span), designated existing provisions as subpar. (A), substituted “a summary of the most recent report required by subparagraph (B).” for “a copy of the annual corrosion report most recently submitted by the corrosion control and prevention executive of each military department under section 903(span)(5) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 122 Stat. 4567; 10 U.S.C. 2228 note).”, and added subpar. (B).

2013—Subsec. (e)(1)(B). Puspan. L. 112–239, § 341(1)(A), inserted “, including available validated data on return on investment for completed corrosion projects and activities” before period at end.

Subsec. (e)(1)(E). Puspan. L. 112–239, § 341(1)(B), substituted “For the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year covered by the report” for “For the fiscal year covered by the report and the preceding fiscal year”.

Subsec. (e)(1)(F). Puspan. L. 112–239, § 341(1)(C), added subpar. (F).

Subsec. (e)(2), (3). Puspan. L. 112–239, § 341(2), (3), redesignated par. (3) as (2) and struck out former par. (2) which read as follows: “Within 60 days after submission of the budget for a fiscal year, the Comptroller General shall provide to the congressional defense committees—

“(A) an analysis of the budget submission for corrosion control and prevention by the Department of Defense; and

“(B) an analysis of the report required under paragraph (1), including the annex to the report described in paragraph (3).”

2011—Subsec. (e)(1)(C). Puspan. L. 111–383, § 331(1)(A), substituted “For the fiscal year covered by the report and the preceding fiscal year, the” for “The”.

Subsec. (e)(1)(E). Puspan. L. 111–383, § 331(1)(B), added subpar. (E).

Subsec. (e)(2)(B). Puspan. L. 111–383, § 331(2), inserted before period at end “, including the annex to the report described in paragraph (3)”.

Subsec. (e)(3). Puspan. L. 111–383, § 331(3), added par. (3).

2008—Puspan. L. 110–181, § 371(a)(1), substituted “Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight” for “Military equipment and infrastructure: prevention and mitigation of corrosion” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Puspan. L. 110–181, § 371(a)(1), added subsec. (a) and struck out span and text of former subsec. (a). Former text read as follows: “The Secretary of Defense shall designate an officer or employee of the Department of Defense, or a standing board or committee of the Department of Defense, as the senior official or organization responsible in the Department to the Secretary of Defense (after the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion of the military equipment and infrastructure of the Department.”

Subsec. (span)(1). Puspan. L. 110–181, § 371(a)(2)(A), substituted “Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight (in this section referred to as the ‘Director’)” for “official or organization designated under subsection (a)”.

Subsec. (span)(2) to (5). Puspan. L. 110–181, § 371(a)(2)(B), substituted “Director” for “designated official or organization”.

Subsecs. (c), (d). Puspan. L. 110–181, § 371(span), added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsec. (c) as (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (f).

Subsec. (d)(2)(D). Puspan. L. 110–181, § 371(c), as amended by Puspan. L. 110–417, inserted “, including through the establishment of memoranda of agreement, joint funding agreements, public-private partnerships, university research and education centers, and other cooperative research agreements” after “operational systems”.

Subsec. (e). Puspan. L. 110–181, § 371(d), added subsec. (e).

Subsec. (f). Puspan. L. 110–181, § 371(span), redesignated subsec. (d) as (f).

Subsec. (f)(4), (5). Puspan. L. 110–181, § 371(e), added pars. (4) and (5).

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment by Puspan. L. 110–417 effective Jan. 28, 2008, and as if included in Puspan. L. 110–181 as enacted, see section 1061(span) of Puspan. L. 110–417, set out as a note under section 6382 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Submission of Notice and Plan to Congress Before Reorganizing, Restructuring, or Eliminating Any Position or Office

Puspan. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, § 811(i), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1846, provided that: “Not less than 30 days before reorganizing, restructuring, or eliminating any position or office specified in this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives notice of such reorganization, restructuring, or elimination together with a plan to ensure that mission requirements are met and appropriate oversight is conducted in carrying out such reorganization, restructuring, or elimination. Such plan shall address how user needs will be met and how associated roles and responsibilities will be accomplished for each position or office that the Secretary determines requiring reorganization, restructuring, or elimination.”

Implementation of Corrective Actions Resulting From Corrosion Study of the F–22 and F–35 Aircraft

Puspan. L. 112–81, div. A, title III, § 324, Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1362, provided that:

“(a)Implementation; Congressional Briefing.—Not later than January 31, 2012, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall implement the recommended actions described in subsection (span) and provide to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives] a briefing on the actions taken by the Under Secretary to implement such recommended actions.

“(span)Recommended Actions.—The recommended actions described in this subsection are the following four recommended actions included in the report of the Government Accountability Office report numbered GAO–11–117R and titled ‘Defense Management: DOD Needs to Monitor and Assess Corrective Actions Resulting from Its Corrosion Study of the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter’:

“(1) The documentation of program-specific recommendations made as a result of the corrosion study described in subsection (d) with regard to the F–35 and F–22 aircraft and the establishment of a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken with respect to such aircraft in response to such recommendations.

“(2) The documentation of program-specific recommendations made as a result of such corrosion study with regard to the other weapon systems identified in the study, specifically the CH–53K helicopter, the Joint High Speed Vessel, the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, and the establishment of a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the corrosion prevention and control programs implemented for such weapons systems in response to such recommendations.

“(3) The documentation of Air Force-specific and Navy-specific recommendations made as a result of such corrosion study and the establishment of a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the Air Force and the Navy in response to such recommendations.

“(4) The documentation of Department of Defense-wide recommendations made as a result of such corrosion study, the implementation of any needed changes in policies and practices to improve corrosion prevention and control in new systems acquired by the Department, and the establishment of a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the Department in response to such recommendations.

“(c)Deadline for Compliance.—Not later than December 31, 2012, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in conjunction with the directors of the F–35 and F–22 program offices, the directors of the program offices for the weapons systems referred to in subsection (span)(2), the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of the Navy, shall—

“(1) take whatever steps necessary to comply with the recommendations documented pursuant to the required implementation under subsection (a) of the recommended actions described in subsection (span); or

“(2) submit to the congressional defense committees written justification of why compliance was not feasible or achieved.

“(d)Corrosion Study.—The corrosion study described in this subsection is the study required in House Report 111–166 accompanying H.R. 2647 of the 111th Congress [Puspan. L. 111–84] conducted by the Office of the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and titled ‘Corrosion Evaluation of the F–22 Raptor and F–35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter’.”

Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives for the Military Departments

Puspan. L. 114–328, div. A, title III, § 322, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2075, provided that:

“(a)In General.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 23, 2016], the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight for the Department of Defense, shall revise guidance relating to corrosion control and prevention executives to—

“(1) clarify the role of each such executive with respect to assisting the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight in holding the appropriate project management office in each military department accountable for submitting the annual report required under [former] section 903(span)(5) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 10 U.S.C. 2228 note [set out below]); and

“(2) ensure that corrosion control and prevention executives emphasize the reduction of corrosion and the effects of corrosion on the military equipment and infrastructure of the Department of Defense, as required in the long-term strategy of the Department of Defense under section 2228(d) of title 10, United States Code.

“(span)Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive Defined.—In this section, the term ‘corrosion control and prevention executive’ means the employee of a military department designated as the corrosion control and prevention executive of the department under section 903(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 10 U.S.C. 2228 note).”

Puspan. L. 110–417, [div. A], title IX, § 903, Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4566, as amended by Puspan. L. 113–66, div. A, title III, § 334, title X, § 1084(span)(1), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 740, 871; Puspan. L. 114–328, div. A, title IX, § 954(c), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2377; Puspan. L. 115–91, div. A, title IX, § 924, Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1526, provided that:

“(a)Requirement to Designate Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 14, 2008], the Assistant Secretary of each military department with responsibility for acquisition, technology, and logistics shall designate an employee of the military department as the corrosion control and prevention executive. Such executive shall be a senior official in the department with responsibility for coordinating department-level corrosion control and prevention program activities (including budget programming) with the military department and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the program executive officers of the military departments, and relevant major subordinate commands of the military departments. Each individual so designated shall be a senior civilian employee of the military department concerned in pay grade GS–15 or higher.

“(span)Qualifications.—Any individual designated as a corrosion control and prevention executive of a military department pursuant to subsection (a) shall—

“(1) have a working knowledge of corrosion prevention and control;

“(2) have strong program management and communication skills; and

“(3) understand the acquisition, research, development, test, and evaluation, and sustainment policies and procedures of the military department, including for the sustainment of infrastructure.

“(c)Duties.—

(1) The corrosion control and prevention executive of a military department shall ensure that corrosion control and prevention is maintained in the department’s policy and guidance for management of each of the following:

“(A) System acquisition and production, including design and maintenance.

“(B) Research, development, test, and evaluation programs and activities.

“(C) Equipment standardization programs, including international standardization agreements.

“(D) Logistics research and development initiatives.

“(E) Logistics support analysis as it relates to integrated logistic support in the materiel acquisition process.

“(F) Military infrastructure design, construction, and maintenance.

“(2) The corrosion control and prevention executive of a military department shall be responsible for identifying the funding levels necessary to accomplish the items listed in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1).

“(3) The corrosion control and prevention executive of a military department shall, in cooperation with the appropriate staff of the department, develop, support, and provide the rationale for resources—

“(A) to initiate and sustain an effective corrosion control and prevention program in the department;

“(B) to evaluate the program’s effectiveness; and

“(C) to ensure that corrosion control and prevention requirements for materiel are reflected in budgeting and policies of the department for the formulation, management, and evaluation of personnel and programs for the entire department, including its reserve components.

“(4) The corrosion control and prevention executive of a military department shall be the principal point of contact of the department to the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight (as assigned under section 2228 of title 10, United States Code).

“[(5) Repealed. Puspan. L. 114–328, div. A, title IX, § 954(c), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2377.]”

Deadline for Designation of Responsible Official or Organization; Interim Report; Deadline for Long-Term Strategy; GAO Review

Puspan. L. 107–314, div. A, title X, § 1067(span)–(e), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2658, 2659, directed the Secretary of Defense to designate a responsible official or organization under subsec. (a) of this section not later than 90 days after Dec. 2, 2002, directed the Secretary to submit to Congress a report setting forth the long-term strategy required under subsec. (c) of this section not later than one year after Dec. 2, 2002, and required the Comptroller General to monitor the implementation of such long-term strategy and, not later than 18 months after Dec. 2, 2002, to submit to Congress an assessment of the extent to which that strategy had been implemented.