Delinquent Interim Change Letters

[RiverAux]

We've discussed NHQ's seeming inability to turn Interim Change Letters into revised regulations many times, but I suppose I hadn't realized how bad it was until I visited the ICL page in the Form/Publication section of the web site. 

We've got 6 ICLs from 2007 and 12 from 2008 that haven't yet been turned into regulations.  Just a reminder, CAPR 5-4 requires that ICLs be turned into regulations within 3-6 months depending on the type of change being made. 

Now, of these 18 delinquent ICLs, it can be safely said that perhaps only 1 is critical (removing rear seats from 15pax vans) so it isn't terribly urgent that they be turned into regulations.

How about a moratorium on new regulations except for critical safety issues until we reduce the ICL backlog a bit?  Evidently there is a finite capability at NHQ to handle regulations (which I personally don't understand given the ease of electronically changing the regs), so I suppose we need to work around it. 

[heliodoc]

Great  suggestion, River!!

Now let us see the leadership move in to action on that moratorium


I KNOW you know the answer!!

[smj58501]

....Evidently there is a finite capability at NHQ to handle regulations (which I personally don't understand given the ease of electronically changing the regs), so I suppose we need to work around it.

There is even a more finite capability for the average volunteer to keep up with all the changes so they have a fighting chance at conscious compliance. We probably have passed that point for most.

Time to slow down the neat idea train so we all have a chance at getting on board.

[BrandonKea]

It's not as easy as changing the PDF. The new pub has to be approved, put up for comments, and then any changes from there have to be re-approved. SHOULD that be being done, yes. But let's not fool ourselves that they can just change the paragraph they want to and re-issue it.

[IceNine]

There is a National Board Meeting Coming up.

If everyone on this board sent a message outlining our dissatisfaction with this situation we could probably at least touch the ears of every NB member

[IceNine]

But let's not fool ourselves that they can just change the paragraph they want to and re-issue it.

It should be perfectly within reason it would require a complete review of our existing reg's to ensure inclusion of all decisions whether in ICL, NB minutes, or whatever.

And then simply require staying on top of the updates

[NC Hokie]

It's not as easy as changing the PDF. The new pub has to be approved, put up for comments, and then any changes from there have to be re-approved. SHOULD that be being done, yes. But let's not fool ourselves that they can just change the paragraph they want to and re-issue it.

Call me obtuse, but why would all of these steps be necessary to incorporate an ICL?  The ICL becomes regulation the moment it's published with no review, comments, or approvals.  If the ICL is the only change to the regulation, it logically follows that the updated document should be able to bypass those steps as well.

[jimmydeanno]

It's probably because of the way the NB wants them incorporated.  "Tell us the changes you want to make to the reg.  We vote to allow you create a draft publication of the reg with the changes.   Then we'll vote on the entire reg with the changes."

[davedove]

It's not as easy as changing the PDF. The new pub has to be approved, put up for comments, and then any changes from there have to be re-approved. SHOULD that be being done, yes. But let's not fool ourselves that they can just change the paragraph they want to and re-issue it.

Call me obtuse, but why would all of these steps be necessary to incorporate an ICL?  The ICL becomes regulation the moment it's published with no review, comments, or approvals.  If the ICL is the only change to the regulation, it logically follows that the updated document should be able to bypass those steps as well.

It's probably because of the way the NB wants them incorporated.  "Tell us the changes you want to make to the reg.  We vote to allow you create a draft publication of the reg with the changes.   Then we'll vote on the entire reg with the changes."

You're probably right.  All the approval and votes should have taken place before the issue of the ICL.  Updating the reg to include the ICL's SHOULD be a simple matter, but because of bureaucratic nonsense, it probably has to go thorugh the approvals all over again.

[Cecil DP]

An ICL is intended to be a temporary fix pending a change to a regulation. As pointed out an ICL has a shelf life of 90 to 180 days.
So if the change is not incorporated into ther reg or appropriate publication within that period it expires. Unfortuneately the command structure doesn't read it's own regulations. For that matter, they have a great history of enacting changes and than forgetting they ever happened.

Excerpt from CAPR 5-4c
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

[swamprat86]

So if the ICL is past the respective 90 to 180 day window, violators of the ICL can not be held accountable for not following the ICL?

[alamrcn]

+1 ... I'd have to agree.

I would NOT be willing to reverse any changes my unit or myself have made because of the ICLs that have now reached their "Best by..." dates.

Can you imagine someone attacking this ICL expiration situation with Literal Malice? "Take those flag patches off your shoulder, they are no longer authorized!" I'm tempted to keep a copy of CAPR 5-4c in my cargo pocket now 

But I'd be less incuraged to try to meet or enforce their requirements if they haven't already been met. You can't hold someone to an order that by our own regulations is no longer "technically" current and valid.

[Cecil DP]

Actually, National HQ would get a big hit on an IG inspection for not either incorporating the change in the reg or for not withdrawing the ICL.

[RiverAux]

Exactly why I mentioned an Admin officer Cecil.  I know my Wing has been hard for similar issues of our own and would like to see NHQ at least be held to the same standard -- of course they really should be setting the standard.

Now, another partial solution would be to lchange the regulation to lengthen the allowable period to turn ICLs into regulations and I actually wouldn't be adverse to that so long as it was kept to something reasonable (say 6 months). 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Exactly why I mentioned an Admin officer Cecil.  I know my Wing has been hard for similar issues of our own and would like to see NHQ at least be held to the same standard -- of course they really should be setting the standard.

Now, another partial solution would be to lchange the regulation to lengthen the allowable period to turn ICLs into regulations and I actually wouldn't be adverse to that so long as it was kept to something reasonable (say 6 months).

Or...

Issue a new ICL every 90-180 days.

[davidsinn]

Exactly why I mentioned an Admin officer Cecil.  I know my Wing has been hard for similar issues of our own and would like to see NHQ at least be held to the same standard -- of course they really should be setting the standard.

Now, another partial solution would be to lchange the regulation to lengthen the allowable period to turn ICLs into regulations and I actually wouldn't be adverse to that so long as it was kept to something reasonable (say 6 months).

Or...

Issue a new ICL every 90-180 days.

How about an ICL to 5-4 that says ICL's never expire.....

[Cecil DP]

Exactly why I mentioned an Admin officer Cecil.  I know my Wing has been hard for similar issues of our own and would like to see NHQ at least be held to the same standard -- of course they really should be setting the standard.

Now, another partial solution would be to lchange the regulation to lengthen the allowable period to turn ICLs into regulations and I actually wouldn't be adverse to that so long as it was kept to something reasonable (say 6 months).

Than the term "Interim Change Letter" would not apply

Or...

Issue a new ICL every 90-180 days.

How about an ICL to 5-4 that says ICL's never expire.....

[swamprat86]

I think this regular use of ICLs is due to use of the internet.  I don't recall there being this many ICLs back when the regs were on hard copy only.  We would get a memo, letter or word from higher headquarters about immediate change and then about a month later we would get our package from NHQ with updated regs showing the change.  This was done with the same or less national staffing as today.

Now that everything is electronic and searchable, people may feel that it is not neccessary to update the regs as quickly because everyone has access to the ICLs as well as not understanding how to properly use the system.

With all the members in CAP and the electronic access to the ICLs, regs, and NB minutes, we should be able to update manuals within the same timeframe we did before the internet.  As far as NHQ staffing, National can always sent out a request for members to volunteer to help with the updates.

I would think this should be an easy think to correct so that we get some of this confusion cleared up and help National "set the example" in following policies.

[Cecil DP]

ICL's as shown in an earlier post are for " situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property. or other contingincy's that require immediate action". Not one of the ICL's listed on the National web page meets that criteria.

  OPR
15 Jun 09 Increased Safety Requirements for Cadet Activities CC
30 Mar 09 New Aircraft Ground Handling Video Training Requirement: Due Date 30 Sep 09 DO
5 Jan 09 Assessments for Damage to CAP Aircraft DO
10 Dec 08 Changes to CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals Ribbons and Certificates DP
28 Oct 08 Communications Special Permission Policy NTC
4 Sep 08
Changes to CAPR 39-2, CAP Membership DP
30 Jul 08
CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program, Professional Development Resident Courses PD
23 Jul 08
Modification and Overnight Use of FEMA-sourced Travel Trailers LGT
15 Jul 08
Clarification of CAPM 39-1, Cadet Grooming Standards DP
10 Jun 08
Reconfiguration of CAP 15-Passenger Vans MX
5 Jun 08
ARCHER Program and Policy Update DO
4 Jun 08
CAPR 50-17, CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program and CAPR 280-2, Civil Air Patrol Aerospace Education Mission - Officer Credit for Cadet Service
PD
10 Apr 08
National Incident Management System (NIMS) Training DO
1 Apr 08
Changes to CAPM 39-1 DP
25 Jan 08
Changes to CAPM 39-1 DP
20 Dec 07
Change to CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership
DP

20 Dec 07
Change to CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals, Ribbons and Certificates DP
18 Dec 07
Change to Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Calendar Month Oil Change Requirements MX
18 Dec 07
Policy Updates Regarding Conflicts of Interest and Insurance Coverage for Maintenance of CAP Corporate Aircraft MX
18 Dec 07
Maintenance of CAP Corporate Aircraft by Pilot Operators and Uninsured Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) Mechanics MX
18 Dec 07
Liability Insurance Requirements for CAP Glider Maintenance MX
18 Dec 07
STCs and Posting STC Performance Data in Locally Developed Checklists MX
16

Let's hold the leaders accountable for their actions or lack thereof in the issuance of ICL's

[RiverAux]

The 15 pax van change could be seen as an immediate action situation.  Same with the ground handling video and this month's safety deal.  But, I agree with you about the rest.