14 USC 1133 - Preliminary development and demonstration

1 See References in Text note below.

Editorial Notes

References in Text

Section 1132(d)(1), referred to in subsec. (span)(1), was, prior to amendment of this section by Puspan. L. 115–282, a reference to section 572(d)(1) of this title, which was redesignated section 572(f)(1) of this title by Puspan. L. 114–120, title II, § 204(a)(1), Fespan. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 34. Section 572 of this title was renumbered section 1132 of this title by Puspan. L. 115–282, title I, § 108(span)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4208.

The date of enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, referred to in subsec. (c)(3)(A), is the date of enactment of Puspan. L. 111–281, which was approved Oct. 15, 2010.

Amendments

2018—Puspan. L. 115–282, § 108(span), renumbered section 573 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Puspan. L. 115–282, § 123(span)(2), in introductory provisions, substituted “section 1131(a)(2)” for “section 571(a)(2)” and “section 1132(a)(1)” for “section 572(a)(1)”.

Subsec. (span)(1). Puspan. L. 115–282, § 123(span)(2), substituted “section 1132(d)(1)” for “section 572(d)(1)”.

Subsec. (span)(3). Puspan. L. 115–232, § 3522(1), substituted “ensure that independent third parties and Government employees that identify safety concerns” for “require that safety concerns identified” and “Coast Guard communicate such concerns as” for “Coast Guard shall be communicated as”.

Subsec. (span)(4). Puspan. L. 115–232, § 3522(2), substituted “The Commandant shall ensure that any safety concerns that have been communicated under paragraph (3) for an acquisition program or project are reported” for “Any safety concerns that have been reported to the Chief Acquisition Officer for an acquisition program or project shall be reported by the Commandant”.

Subsec. (span)(5). Puspan. L. 115–232, § 3522(3)(A), added introductory provisions and struck out former introductory provisions which read as follows: “If operational test and evaluation of a capability or asset already in low, initial, or full-rate production identifies a safety concern with the capability or asset or any subsystems of the capability or asset not previously identified during developmental or operational test and evaluation, the Commandant shall—”.

Subsec. (span)(5)(A). Puspan. L. 115–232, § 3522(3)(B), inserted “the Commandant, through the Assistant Commandant for Capability, shall” before “notify”.

Subsec. (span)(5)(B). Puspan. L. 115–232, § 3522(3)(C), substituted “the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support shall notify the Commandant and the Deputy Commandant for Operations of the safety concern within 50 days after the notification required under subparagraph (A), and include in such notification” for “notify the Chief Acquisition Officer and include in such notification” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c)(2)(A). Puspan. L. 115–232, § 3522(4)(A), struck out “and that are delivered after the date of enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010” after “TEMPEST certification”.

Subsec. (c)(5). Puspan. L. 115–232, § 3522(4)(B), struck out “and delivered after the date of enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010” after “acquired by the Coast Guard”.

2012—Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Puspan. L. 112–213 struck out subpar. (B). Text read as follows: “Not later than December 31, 2011, and biennially thereafter, the Commandant shall provide a report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate identifying which, if any, Coast Guard cutters that have been issued a certificate of classification by the American Bureau of Shipping have not been maintained in class and detailing the reasons why they have not been maintained in class.”

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

National Security Cutters

Puspan. L. 115–282, title III, § 311(f), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4249, provided that: “The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating is authorized to enter into a multiyear contract for the procurement of a tenth, eleventh, and twelfth National Security Cutter and associated government-furnished equipment.”

Puspan. L. 115–282, title VIII, § 818(a), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4307, provided that: “The Commandant of the Coast Guard may not certify an eighth National Security Cutter as Ready for Operations before the date on which the Commandant provides to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate—

“(1) a notification of a new standard method for tracking operational employment of Coast Guard major cutters that does not include time during which such a cutter is away from its homeport for maintenance or repair; and

“(2) a report analyzing cost and performance for different approaches to achieving varied levels of operational employment using the standard method required by paragraph (1) that, at a minimum—

“(A) compares over a 30-year period the average annualized baseline cost and performances for a certified National Security Cutter that operated for 185 days away from homeport or an equivalent alternative measure of operational tempo—

“(i) against the cost of a 15 percent increase in days away from homeport or an equivalent alternative measure of operational tempo for a National Security Cutter; and

“(ii) against the cost of the acquisition and operation of an additional National Security Cutter; and

“(B) examines the optimal level of operational employment of National Security Cutters to balance National Security Cutter cost and mission performance.”