CAPR 5-4, ICLs expire, public comment no longer required.

[Eclipse]

Two questions which come up here on a regular basis:

1 - Posting draft publications for member comment before final adoption.

2 - The lifespan of ICLs.

For reference and future discussions, here is what CAPR 5-4 (updated Oct 2012) has to say about that:

1 - A member comment period on updated publications is no longer required.
The verbiage which dictated a fairly specific procedure of public comment/review/explanation is
no longer included in 5-4.  Interestingly, the KB article http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/624/kw/publications%20for%20comment
which refers to this issue, and which was updated Oct 2013, still contains that verbiage, even though the regulation it links to does not.
(Another case where the KB essentially conflicts with itself).

Bottom line, a public comment period is no longer required for publications, nor is there a process
which requires reviewing or addressing the comments in the case that a publication is presented for
review before final adoption.

2 - ICLs expire, and there is no relief or allowance for them to assert otherwise.
And has been discussed ad nauseam here, ICLs are only supposed to be used for situations which require "prompt action",
essentially safety issues.  They aren't supposed to be used as "quick and dirty" regulation updates that circumvent the normal process.

4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of
emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other
contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued
outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically
limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of
policies by ICL is a temporary measure.

a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with
a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the
letter was issued.

b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be
incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.

Bottom line, ICLs expire no more then 180 days after they are issued, and all of the existing
ones are null and void, regardless of their self-assertion that they are in effect until the
regulation is changed.  At a minimum, they would need to be re-published every 90-180
days in order to be properly in effect.

The ICL issue could have been changed the last time the reg was updated to reflect allowing an
ICL to live indefinitely, but for whatever reason it wasn't, even while at the time of publication
of 5-4, there were expired ICLs still in place, so clearly this was felt to be an important check and
balance to the publication process, yet things still remain as they do.

[Papabird]

2 - ICLs expire, and there is no relief or allowance for them to assert otherwise.
And has been discussed ad nauseam here, ICLs are only supposed to be used for situations which require "prompt action",
essentially safety issues.  They aren't supposed to be used as "quick and dirty" regulation updates that circumvent the normal process.

The ICL issue could have been changed the last time the reg was updated to reflect allowing an
ICL to live indefinitely, but for whatever reason it wasn't, even while at the time of publication
of 5-4, there were expired ICLs still in place, so clearly this was felt to be an important check and
balance to the publication process, yet things still remain as they do.

By the letter of the regulations, this is correct.  But what should we do about it? 

As far as the 39-1 ICLs, we are getting a new manual in the next few weeks...I hope...and this become moot.  Are there any other active ICLs, that we are operating under, or is this just a uniform thing?  (I just looked and couldn't find any.)  If it is just uniforms, well, it's the third rail of CAP, and that may be the reason that the ICLs have been allowed to live.

So, short of the standard "Chain of Command" argument (which has been done to my Wing), what are we to do?  Start wearing our uniforms to the letter of CAPM 39-1 dated 23 Mar 05?  (Break out the old CAP/USAF Aux Command patch and make sure you have that Wing patch on!)

Oh, and a fun fact....CAP Airman/Airman 1st Class/Senior Airman ranks are shown in that version!  "Figure 6-4. Senior Member NCO and Airmen Grades", but could never be worn!  Fun!!!

[Eclipse]

I doubt there's much to be done beyond the visibility and perhaps asking our respective wing CCs to
consider these things in the various meetings and committees.

This real issue is that when this sort of thing is allowed to continue, it pretty much makes all the
regs "negotiable", which is the state of CAP today.

I've said it for years and will continue to say it - the program itself is pretty much fine, we just have
to start working it as written instead of making things up for expedience.

[MIKE]

The solution to the ICL problem is right below it in CAPR 5-4:

5. Changes may only be published by the same unit that published the basic publication. A
change will only be published using the page-insert method. Write-in changes are NOT
AUTHORIZED.

Instead of reissuing ICLs again and again to skirt the regulation, issue page-insert changes.

[Eclipse]

Which these days costs zero dollars, since we aren't actually printing anything anymore.