10 U.S.C. § 2228 — Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight

Page 1812 TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES § 2224a 1 See References in Text note below. fense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Rep- resentatives] a report on the strategy required by sub- section (a). The report shall include the following: ‘‘(1) A description of the current status of the strat- egy required by subsection (a) and of the implementa- tion of the strategy, including a description of the role of the strategy in the risk management by the Department regarding the supply chain and in oper- ational planning for cyber security. ‘‘(2) A description of the risks, if any, that the De- partment will accept in the strategy due to limita- tions on funds or other applicable constraints.’’ INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE COMPUTER SECURITY AND INFORMATION PROTECTION Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [[div. A], title IX, § 921], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–233, provided that: ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish an Institute for Defense Computer Security and Information Protection. ‘‘(b) MISSION.—The Secretary shall require the insti- tute— ‘‘(1) to conduct research and technology develop- ment that is relevant to foreseeable computer and network security requirements and information as- surance requirements of the Department of Defense with a principal focus on areas not being carried out by other organizations in the private or public sector; and ‘‘(2) to facilitate the exchange of information re- garding cyberthreats, technology, tools, and other relevant issues. ‘‘(c) CONTRACTOR OPERATION.—The Secretary shall enter into a contract with a not-for-profit entity, or a consortium of not-for-profit entities, to organize and operate the institute. The Secretary shall use competi- tive procedures for the selection of the contractor to the extent determined necessary by the Secretary. ‘‘(d) FUNDING.—Of the amount authorized to be appro- priated by section 301(5) [114 Stat. 1654A–52], $5,000,000 shall be available for the Institute for Defense Com- puter Security and Information Protection. ‘‘(e) REPORT.—Not later than April 1, 2001, the Sec- retary shall submit to the congressional defense com- mittees [Committees on Armed Services and Appro- priations of the Senate and the House of Representa- tives] the Secretary’s plan for implementing this sec- tion.’’ § 2224a. Information security: continued applica- bility of expiring Governmentwide require- ments to the Department of Defense (a) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of subchapter II 1 of chapter 35 of title 44 shall continue to apply through September 30, 2004, with respect to the Department of Defense, notwithstanding the expiration of authority under section 3536 1 of such title. (b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—In administering the provisions of subchapter II 1 of chapter 35 of title 44 with respect to the Department of Defense after the expiration of authority under section 3536 1 of such title, the Secretary of Defense shall perform the duties set forth in that sub- chapter for the Director of the Office of Manage- ment and Budget. (Added Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title X, § 1052(b)(1), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2648.) Editorial Notes REFERENCES IN TEXT Provisions relating to the expiration of authority of subchapter II of chapter 35 of title 44, referred to in text, did not appear in section 3536 of title 44 subse- quent to the general revision of subchapter II by Pub. L. 107–296, title X, § 1001(b)(1), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2259. Subchapter II, as revised by Pub. L. 107–296, was repealed and a new subchapter II enacted by Pub. L. 113–283, § 2(a), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 3073. [§ 2225. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title VIII, § 833(b)(2)(A), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2284] Section, added Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [[div. A], title VIII, § 812(a)(1)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–212; amend- ed Pub. L. 108–178, § 4(b)(2), Dec. 15, 2003, 117 Stat. 2640; Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title X, § 1071(a)(2), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2398; Pub. L. 111–350, § 5(b)(6), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3842, related to tracking and management of in- formation technology purchases. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION; APPLICABILITY Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [[div. A], title VIII, § 812(b)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–214, which provided that the Secretary of Defense was to collect data as required under section 2225 of this title for all contractual ac- tions covered by such section entered into on or after Oct. 30, 2000, was repealed by Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title VIII, § 833(b)(2)(C)(i), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2284. GAO REPORT Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [[div. A], title VIII, § 812(c)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–214, which directed the Comptroller General to submit to committees of Con- gress a report on the collection of data under this sec- tion not later than 15 months after Oct. 30, 2000, was re- pealed by Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title VIII, § 833(b)(2)(C)(i), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2284. [§ 2226. Renumbered § 4602] [§ 2227. Renumbered § 4601] § 2228. Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight (a) OFFICE AND DIRECTOR.—(1) There is an Of- fice of Corrosion Policy and Oversight within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. (2) The Office shall be headed by a Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, who shall be as- signed to such position by the Under Secretary from among civilian employees of the Depart- ment of Defense with the qualifications de- scribed in paragraph (3). The Director is respon- sible in the Department of Defense to the Sec- retary of Defense (after the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment) for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion of the military equipment and infrastructure of the Department of Defense. (3) In order to qualify to be assigned to the po- sition of Director, an individual shall— (A) have management expertise in, and pro- fessional experience with, corrosion project and policy implementation, including an un- derstanding of the effects of corrosion policies on infrastructure; research, development, test, and evaluation; and maintenance; and (B) have an understanding of Department of Defense budget formulation and execution, policy formulation, and planning and program requirements. (4) The Secretary of Defense shall designate the position of Director as a critical acquisition position under section 1731 of this title. Page 1813 TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES § 2228 (b) DUTIES.—(1) The Director of Corrosion Pol- icy and Oversight (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Director’’) shall oversee and coordinate ef- forts throughout the Department of Defense to prevent and mitigate corrosion of the military equipment and infrastructure of the Depart- ment. The duties under this paragraph shall in- clude the duties specified in paragraphs (2) through (5). (2) The Director shall develop and recommend any policy guidance on the prevention and miti- gation of corrosion to be issued by the Secretary of Defense. (3) The Director shall review the programs and funding levels proposed by the Secretary of each military department during the annual internal Department of Defense budget review process as those programs and funding proposals relate to programs and funding for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion and shall submit to the Secretary of Defense recommendations regard- ing those programs and proposed funding levels. (4) The Director shall provide oversight and coordination of the efforts within the Depart- ment of Defense to prevent or mitigate corro- sion during— (A) the design, acquisition, and maintenance of military equipment; and (B) the design, construction, and mainte- nance of infrastructure. (5) The Director shall monitor acquisition practices within the Department of Defense— (A) to ensure that the use of corrosion pre- vention technologies and the application of corrosion prevention treatments are fully con- sidered during research and development in the acquisition process; and (B) to ensure that, to the extent determined appropriate for each acquisition program, such technologies and treatments are incorporated into that program, particularly during the en- gineering and design phases of the acquisition process. (6) The Director shall ensure that contractors of the Department of Defense carrying out ac- tivities for the prevention and mitigation of cor- rosion of the military equipment and infrastruc- ture of the Department of Defense employ for such activities a substantial number of individ- uals who have completed, or who are currently enrolled in, a qualified training program. (c) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES FOR DIRECTOR.— The Director is authorized to— (1) develop, update, and coordinate corrosion training with the Defense Acquisition Univer- sity; (2) participate in the process within the De- partment of Defense for the development of relevant directives and instructions; (3) interact directly with the corrosion pre- vention industry, trade associations, other government corrosion prevention agencies, academic research and educational institu- tions, and scientific organizations engaged in corrosion prevention, including the National Academy of Sciences; and (4) require that any training or professional development activities for military personnel or civilian employees of the Department of De- fense for the prevention and mitigation of cor- rosion of the military equipment and infra- structure of the Department of Defense are conducted under a qualified training program that trains and certifies individuals in meet- ing corrosion control standards that are recog- nized industry-wide. (d) LONG-TERM STRATEGY.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement a long- term strategy to reduce corrosion and the ef- fects of corrosion on the military equipment and infrastructure of the Department of Defense. (2) The strategy under paragraph (1) shall in- clude the following: (A) Expansion of the emphasis on corrosion prevention and mitigation within the Depart- ment of Defense to include coverage of infra- structure. (B) Application uniformly throughout the Department of Defense of requirements and criteria for the testing and certification of new corrosion-prevention technologies for equipment and infrastructure with similar characteristics, similar missions, or similar operating environments. (C) Implementation of programs, including supporting databases, to ensure that a focused and coordinated approach is taken throughout the Department of Defense to collect, review, validate, and distribute information on proven methods and products that are relevant to the prevention of corrosion of military equipment and infrastructure. (D) Establishment of a coordinated research and development program for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion for new and exist- ing military equipment and infrastructure that includes a plan to transition new corro- sion prevention technologies into operational systems, including through the establishment of memoranda of agreement, joint funding agreements, public-private partnerships, uni- versity research and education centers, and other cooperative research agreements. (3) The strategy shall include, for the matters specified in paragraph (2), the following: (A) Policy guidance. (B) Performance measures and milestones. (C) An assessment of the necessary per- sonnel and funding necessary to accomplish the long-term strategy. (e) REPORT.—(1) For each budget for a fiscal year, beginning with the budget for fiscal year 2009 and ending with the budget for fiscal year 2022, the Secretary of Defense shall submit, with the defense budget materials, a report on the following: (A) Funding requirements for the long-term strategy developed under subsection (d). (B) The estimated composite return on in- vestment achieved by implementing the strat- egy, and documented in the assessments by the Department of Defense of completed corro- sion projects and activities. (C) For the fiscal year covered by the report and the preceding fiscal year, the funds re- quested in the budget compared to the funding requirements. (D) If the full amount of funding require- ments is not requested in the budget, the rea- sons for not including the full amount and a Page 1814 TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES § 2228 description of the impact on readiness, logis- tics, and safety of not fully funding required corrosion prevention and mitigation activi- ties. (E) For the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year covered by the report, the amount of funds requested in the budget for each project or activity described in subsection (d) com- pared to the funding requirements for the project or activity. (F) For the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year covered by the report, a description of the specific amount of funds used for military corrosion projects, the Technical Corrosion Collaboration program, and other corrosion- related activities. (2)(A) Each report under this section shall in- clude, in an annex to the report, a summary of the most recent report required by subparagraph (B). (B) Not later than December 31 of each year, through December 31, 2020, the corrosion control and prevention executive of a military depart- ment shall submit to the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight a report containing rec- ommendations pertaining to the corrosion con- trol and prevention program of the military de- partment. Such report shall include rec- ommendations for the funding levels necessary for the executive to carry out the duties of the executive under this section. The report re- quired under this subparagraph shall— (i) provide a summary of key accomplish- ments, goals, and objectives of the corrosion control and prevention program of the mili- tary department; and (ii) include the performance measures used to ensure that the corrosion control and pre- vention program achieved the goals and objec- tives described in clause (i). (f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: (1) The term ‘‘corrosion’’ means the deterio- ration of a material or its properties due to a reaction of that material with its chemical en- vironment. (2) The term ‘‘military equipment’’ includes all weapon systems, weapon platforms, vehi- cles, and munitions of the Department of De- fense, and the components of such items. (3) The term ‘‘infrastructure’’ includes all buildings, structures, airfields, port facilities, surface and subterranean utility systems, heating and cooling systems, fuel tanks, pave- ments, and bridges. (4) The term ‘‘budget’’, with respect to a fis- cal year, means the budget for that fiscal year that is submitted to Congress by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31. (5) The term ‘‘defense budget materials’’, with respect to a fiscal year, means the mate- rials submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Defense in support of the budget for that fiscal year. (6) The term ‘‘qualified training program’’ means a training program in corrosion con- trol, mitigation, and prevention that is— (A) offered or accredited by an organiza- tion that sets industry corrosion standards; or (B) an industrial coatings applicator train- ing program registered under the Act of Au- gust 16, 1937 (popularly known as the ‘‘Na- tional Apprenticeship Act’’; 29 U.S.C. 50 et seq.). (Added Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title X, § 1067(a)(1), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2657; amended Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title III, § 371(a)–(e), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 79–81; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title X, § 1061(b)(1), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4612; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title III, § 331, Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4185; Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title III, § 341, Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1699; Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title IX, § 954(a), (b), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2376, 2377; Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, § 811(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1845; Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title VIII, § 861(j)(13), title XVII, § 1731(a)(32), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1520, 1814; Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title VIII, § 813, Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 1823; Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title XVIII, § 1801(a)(19), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 684.) 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, popu- larly 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). Pub. L. 118–31 substituted ‘‘in- structions;’’ for ‘‘instructions;;’’. 2021—Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 117–81, § 813(1), added par. (6). Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 117–81, § 813(2), added par. (4). Subsec. (f)(6). Pub. L. 117–81, § 813(3), added par. (6). 2019—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 116–92, § 1731(a)(32), struck out second period at end. Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 116–92, § 861(j)(13), substituted ‘‘under section 1731 of this title’’ for ‘‘under section 1733(b)(1)(C) of this title’’. 2018—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 115–232, § 811(a)(1), sub- stituted ‘‘and Sustainment’’ for ‘‘, Technology, and Lo- gistics’’. Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. 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 Depart- ment of Defense.’’ 2016—Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 114–328, § 954(a)(1), in- serted ‘‘and ending with the budget for fiscal year 2022’’ after ‘‘2009’’ in introductory provisions. Subsec. (e)(1)(B). Pub. 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). Pub. L. 114–328, § 954(a)(3), amended subpar. (D) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (D) read as follows: ‘‘An explanation if the funding require- ments are not fully funded in the budget.’’ Subsec. (e)(1)(F). Pub. L. 114–328, § 954(a)(4), struck out ‘‘pilot’’ before ‘‘program’’. Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 114–328, § 954(b), designated ex- isting provisions as subpar. (A), substituted ‘‘a sum- mary of the most recent report required by subpara- graph (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(b)(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). Page 1815 TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES § 2228 2013—Subsec. (e)(1)(B). Pub. L. 112–239, § 341(1)(A), in- serted ‘‘, including available validated data on return on investment for completed corrosion projects and ac- tivities’’ before period at end. Subsec. (e)(1)(E). Pub. L. 112–239, § 341(1)(B), sub- stituted ‘‘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). Pub. L. 112–239, § 341(1)(C), added subpar. (F). Subsec. (e)(2), (3). Pub. L. 112–239, § 341(2), (3), redesig- nated 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 corro- sion control and prevention by the Department of De- fense; and ‘‘(B) an analysis of the report required under para- graph (1), including the annex to the report described in paragraph (3).’’ 2011—Subsec. (e)(1)(C). Pub. L. 111–383, § 331(1)(A), sub- stituted ‘‘For the fiscal year covered by the report and the preceding fiscal year, the’’ for ‘‘The’’. Subsec. (e)(1)(E). Pub. L. 111–383, § 331(1)(B), added subpar. (E). Subsec. (e)(2)(B). Pub. L. 111–383, § 331(2), inserted be- fore period at end ‘‘, including the annex to the report described in paragraph (3)’’. Subsec. (e)(3). Pub. L. 111–383, § 331(3), added par. (3). 2008—Pub. L. 110–181, § 371(a)(1), substituted ‘‘Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight’’ for ‘‘Military equip- ment and infrastructure: prevention and mitigation of corrosion’’ in section catchline. Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–181, § 371(a)(1), added subsec. (a) and struck out heading and text of former subsec. (a). Former text read as follows: ‘‘The Secretary of De- fense shall designate an officer or employee of the De- partment 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 Sec- retary of Defense (after the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) for the pre- vention and mitigation of corrosion of the military equipment and infrastructure of the Department.’’ Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 110–181, § 371(a)(2)(A), sub- stituted ‘‘Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight (in this section referred to as the ‘Director’)’’ for ‘‘offi- cial or organization designated under subsection (a)’’. Subsec. (b)(2) to (5). Pub. L. 110–181, § 371(a)(2)(B), sub- stituted ‘‘Director’’ for ‘‘designated official or organi- zation’’. Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 110–181, § 371(b), added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsec. (c) as (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (f). Subsec. (d)(2)(D). Pub. L. 110–181, § 371(c), as amended by Pub. L. 110–417, inserted ‘‘, including through the es- tablishment of memoranda of agreement, joint funding agreements, public-private partnerships, university re- search and education centers, and other cooperative re- search agreements’’ after ‘‘operational systems’’. Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 110–181, § 371(d), added subsec. (e). Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 110–181, § 371(b), redesignated sub- sec. (d) as (f). Subsec. (f)(4), (5). Pub. L. 110–181, § 371(e), added pars. (4) and (5). Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2008 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 110–417 effective Jan. 28, 2008, and as if included in Pub. L. 110–181 as enacted, see sec- tion 1061(b) of Pub. 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 Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, § 811(i), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1846, provided that: ‘‘Not less than 30 days be- fore reorganizing, restructuring, or eliminating any po- sition 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 accom- plished 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 AIR- CRAFT Pub. 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 De- fense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall implement the recommended actions described in sub- section (b) and provide to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Ap- propriations of the Senate and the House of Represent- atives] a briefing on the actions taken by the Under Secretary to implement such recommended actions. ‘‘(b) RECOMMENDED ACTIONS.—The recommended ac- tions described in this subsection are the following four recommended actions included in the report of the Gov- ernment Accountability Office report numbered GAO–11–117R and titled ‘Defense Management: DOD Needs to Monitor and Assess Corrective Actions Result- ing from Its Corrosion Study of the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter’: ‘‘(1) The documentation of program-specific rec- ommendations 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 effective- ness of the corrective actions taken with respect to such aircraft in response to such recommendations. ‘‘(2) The documentation of program-specific rec- ommendations made as a result of such corrosion study with regard to the other weapon systems iden- tified in the study, specifically the CH–53K heli- copter, the Joint High Speed Vessel, the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, and the estab- lishment of a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the corrosion prevention and con- trol 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 proc- ess 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 cor- rosion study, the implementation of any needed changes in policies and practices to improve corro- sion prevention and control in new systems acquired by the Department, and the establishment of a proc- ess for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the Department in re- sponse to such recommendations. ‘‘(c) DEADLINE FOR COMPLIANCE.—Not later than De- cember 31, 2012, the Under Secretary of Defense for Ac- quisition, 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 (b)(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 re- quired implementation under subsection (a) of the recommended actions described in subsection (b); or Page 1816 TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES § 2229 ‘‘(2) submit to the congressional defense commit- tees written justification of why compliance was not feasible or achieved. ‘‘(d) CORROSION STUDY.—The corrosion study de- scribed in this subsection is the study required in House Report 111–166 accompanying H.R. 2647 of the 111th Congress [Pub. 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 Pub. 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, Tech- nology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Direc- tor of Corrosion Policy and Oversight for the Depart- ment of Defense, shall revise guidance relating to cor- rosion control and prevention executives to— ‘‘(1) clarify the role of each such executive with re- spect to assisting the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight in holding the appropriate project manage- ment office in each military department accountable for submitting the annual report required under [former] section 903(b)(5) of the Duncan Hunter Na- tional 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. ‘‘(b) 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 con- trol 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).’’ Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title IX, § 903, Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4566, as amended by Pub. L. 113–66, div. A, title III, § 334, title X, § 1084(b)(1), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 740, 871; Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title IX, § 954(c), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2377; Pub. 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 depart- ment with responsibility for acquisition, technology, and logistics shall designate an employee of the mili- tary department as the corrosion control and preven- tion executive. Such executive shall be a senior official in the department with responsibility for coordinating department-level corrosion control and prevention pro- gram activities (including budget programming) with the military department and the Office of the Sec- retary of Defense, the program executive officers of the military departments, and relevant major subordinate commands of the military departments. Each indi- vidual so designated shall be a senior civilian employee of the military department concerned in pay grade GS–15 or higher. ‘‘(b) QUALIFICATIONS.—Any individual designated as a corrosion control and prevention executive of a mili- tary department pursuant to subsection (a) shall— ‘‘(1) have a working knowledge of corrosion preven- tion and control; ‘‘(2) have strong program management and commu- nication skills; and ‘‘(3) understand the acquisition, research, develop- ment, 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 preven- tion 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, includ- ing international standardization agreements. ‘‘(D) Logistics research and development initia- tives. ‘‘(E) Logistics support analysis as it relates to inte- grated 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 iden- tifying the funding levels necessary to accomplish the items listed in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of para- graph (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 preven- tion requirements for materiel are reflected in budg- eting and policies of the department for the formula- tion, management, and evaluation of personnel and programs for the entire department, including its re- serve 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. Pub. 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 Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title X, § 1067(b)–(e), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2658, 2659, directed the Secretary of De- fense 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 Comp- troller 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. § 2229. Strategic policy on prepositioning of ma- teriel and equipment (a) POLICY REQUIRED.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall maintain a strategic policy on the pro- grams of the Department of Defense for prepositioned materiel and equipment. Such policy shall take into account national secu- rity threats, strategic mobility, service re- quirements, support for crisis response ele- ments, and the requirements of the combatant commands, and shall address how the Depart- ment’s prepositioning programs, both ground and afloat, align with national defense strate- gies and departmental priorities.