Accurate Coding Plus bring a solid and much needed nursing experience as RN and a reputation for excellence as HCS-PHCS to medicare coding. She is a joy to work with because of her quest for details. I will not change her for any price.
Accurate Coding Plus understands home health need for on time response to coding request and they make conscious effort to ensure that the coding is in compliance with required regulations. They are courteous and demonstrate great knowledge.
Christy is thorough, she goes over the notes, profile and often find out what you are missing and what needs to be corrected. Being an RN is an added incentive because she will advice the SN's documentation. I don't worry about coding correctly and sequencing. Christy has it.
Accurate Coding Plus is timely and efficient and saves us time and money. Thanks Accurate Coding.


H.R. 4241, the budget reconciliation bill, contained a controversial provision that would have fundamentally rewritten national mining policy by ending a decade-long Congressional ban on the sale of public lands to mining companies. These lands include Bureau of Land Management tracts and certain areas within national parks and forests. Many of them are now used for recreation, wildlife, fisheries or regional drinking water. Under the new provision, these same lands could be sold without public input or environmental review, and Americans who now enjoy them could see them privatized and closed. The lands would be not be required to be used only for mining but could be used for real estate development or other purposes.
Despite the opposition of environmentalists, the House, on November 18, 2005, approved H.R. 4241 by a 217-215 vote (House roll call vote 601). NO is the pro-environment vote. This provision was dropped during conference negotiations with the Senate.


camo spoiled by a coal miner coal mining sticker .
List of Major National Historical and Cultural Sites in .
coal miner floating machine for sale in france uganda .
» lingqiu yinan coal miner . in Nigeria,UsedStone Crusher in Nigeria Crusher For Sale. coal crusher supply . used coal impact crusher suppliers in nigeria.
coal mining business in 2012 indonesia; erection of jaw coal crushing; oracle erp coal mining; stone coal kazakhstan; coal process companies in kenya; conceptual flow chart coal mine; alamat pt ktc coal mining energy; coal crusher for aluminum slag; training project on coal mining technology; coal coal biologi essay mengenai sel; lingqiu yinan .
inexperienced coal miner . lingqiu yinan coal miner. A documentary of a coal miner's son in his own words why its necessary to have a coal miners web site.
coal mining in rajasthan in Islamabad - Mining equipment & mine. Coal Mines Map, Coal Mines Map of India. View online Coal Mines Map and Coal Mines location maps in India, Map of India . Karten von Goa; Landkarten von Kerala .
Topic Miranda Mineral Holdings Mining . Miranda Coal, will sell its 73%. . agitation tank machine for sale lingqiu yinan wet ball mill lingqiu yinan mining .
lingqiu yinan coal miner Arjay Wong Crusher grinding mill equipment arjay wong coal mining cebu grinding mill equipment ricky sutanto coal mining arjay wong coal .
Crusher Crusherinchina Batubarammesa isi coal grinder. coal mining companies websites . lingqiu yinan coal mifmsbaroda. coal pulveriser machines mfg, .
led coal miners headlamp manufacturer/supplier, . » lingqiu yinan coal miner . in Nigeria,UsedStone Crusher in Nigeria Crusher For Sale. coal crusher supply .
Hazards And Risks Caused By Crushing Plant – Grinding .
lingqiu yinan coal miner - railwayindia. camo spoiled by a coal miner coal mining sticker; . lingqiu yinan coal miner vibrating sieve .
Lingqiu Yinan Coal Minercmandi. Berkeley Wv Usa Coal Mines. Coal Mill Rools. Coal Mining Surface Road Grinder. Coal Mine Belt For Sale. In Russia That Need Coal.
lingqiu yinan coal miner - talentgrowth. lingqiu yinan coal miner. Arjay Wong Crusher grinding mill equipment arjay wong coal mining cebu grinding mill .
Coal mining provides us with an essential fossil fuel that is used for heat and electricity creation. It keeps us warm, lets us power up smartphones, .
lingqiu yinan coal miner . what is feeding,crushing,grinding as applied in coal preparation; thermal power plant coal handling plant primary crusher and how to work .
flow sheet of Gold Processing using aqua rega lingqiu yinan coal miner crusher run price per ton run of mine nickle ore sizer how to calculate crusher liner wear .
how much wastewater does a sand washing machine .
lingqiu yinan coal miner Arjay Wong Crusher grinding mill equipment arjay wong coal mining cebu grinding mill equipment ricky sutanto coal mining arjay wong coal mining cebu -lingqiu yinan coal miner-,tiga pilar and mining coal grinding mill equipmentLingqiu Yinan Coal Miner grinding mill equipment coal mining company .
list of machinery and equipment of talc products; talc production plants; chp processing plants in coal fired boilers; lingqiu yinan coal miner; Talc processing plant, line, talc crushing and grinding equipment. Talc crushing and grinding equipment. Jaw Crusher is the primary crushing machine used in talc crushing.
Graph Pattern Crusher For Coal - Crusher, quarry, mining .
coal mining world coal association. overview of mining in north west province .one has an underground operation at wessels and an opencast mine at mamatwan risk .
Coal Crusher, Jaw Crusher At Ahmedabad Plant,Mining Equipment and Crushing Equipment in India. of crusher machines and . stone crushing machine manufacturer.


Eagle Hospitality Trust is preparing to launch the roadshow for its up to $600m Singapore IPO on Friday, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Smart wearables manufacturer Huami Corp has launched book building for its $ 114m follow on American Depository Shares (ADS) offering.
Chinese plastic surgery online social network So-Young International has commenced its Nasdaq IPO of up to $179.4m.
Chinese e-commerce platform Yunji Incorporated has set a price range for its issuance of American Depository Shares (ADS) on the NASDAQ board.
Viva Biotech Holdings has kicked off bookbuilding for its Hong Kong listing, eyeing proceeds of up to HK$1.52bn ($194m). The firm has secured the support of Chinese state-owned giant Sinopharm.
Chinese software firm Duiba Group covered the book for its up to HK$900m ($114.7m) IPO on Tuesday morning, just hours after launch, according to a source close to the deal.
Sterling and Wilson Solar, the solar power business of Indian conglomerate Shapoorji Pallonji Group, is eyeing a listing of up to Rp45bn ($648m), having filed a draft prospectus this week.
Hutchison China MediTech sparked life into the Hong Kong biotechnology IPO market this week, filing a draft prospectus for a $500m listing with the city's stock exchange. The globally known name — already listed on two foreign exchanges — is a boost for biotech investors, who have been drip-fed smaller start-ups since Hong Kong allowed pre-revenue companies from the sector to begin listing last year. Jonathan Breen reports.
The Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) has published guidelines for companies looking to list on its new Science and Technology Innovation Board, as well as underwriters, including an unusual requirement for the sponsors of initial public offerings (IPOs) to commit to deals.


Hack Hex is a leading, trusted, widely-acknowledged dedicated cybersecurity news platform, attracting hundreds of monthly readers including IT professionals, researchers, hackers, technologists, and enthusiasts.
Hack Hex features latest cyber security news and in-depth coverage of current as well as future trends in technology and how they are shaping the world.
In 2018, we started HH as dedicated cybersecurity and technology news platform to educate people.
We are continuously working in the direction to better the platform and would love to hear your valuable thoughts and feedback to make it more resourceful.
Feel free to write to us at admin@hackhex.com for any feedback or queries. We look forward to hearing from you. You can also follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get latest updates on your timeline.


text:
from malcolm.yamlutil import check_yaml_names, make_block_creator

ADAndor3_driver_block = make_block_creator(__file__, "ADAndor3_driver_block.yaml")
ADAndor3_runnable_block = make_block_creator(__file__, "ADAndor3_runnable_block.yaml")

__all__ = check_yaml_names(globals())

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


This beautiful flat heavyweight sterling silver bangle has been handmade with a hammered finish. This round section bangle has a real hand crafted feel. Please note that each Planus item is slightly different to the next, the process of hammering the silver is fluid in this collection and it is what makes these pieces so special.


It's that time of year again, when Newport Wedding Magazine gets released. I am blessed to not only have my wedding featured in the 2016 issue, but I have a full page article on the inside back cover!
Grab a copy at a local newsstand location and turn to page 54 for a spread on my May wedding at the Hotel Viking, and page 96 for an article by yours truly! Going from a planning-crazed fiancé to a wife is just the beginning of the newly wed fun.
Sneak peak: there's two pictures of my fluffy husky Nekoda. One in the wedding spread and one somewhere else…. can you find it?


A. Overview. This section specifies the procedures to be employed when a certificate holder, fractional ownership program, (as defined in paragraph 11-4E), or a Production Approval Holder (PAH) operating under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) voluntarily discloses to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) apparent violations of those FAA regulations listed in paragraph 11-2. These procedures can be applied to maintenance, flight operations, anti-drug and alcohol misuse prevention programs, and to the manufacturing functions of a PAH's organization. These procedures cannot be applied for those persons who are required to report failures, malfunctions and defects under 14 CFR part 21 § 21.3 and also for those people who do not submit the reports in the time frame required by the regulation.
B. Internal Evaluation Programs (IEP). Certificate holders, fractional ownership programs, and PAHs are encouraged, but not required, to develop IEPs that continually monitor company policies and procedures and ensure that the highest level of safety and security compliance is maintained. They may voluntarily disclose apparent violations of 14 CFR covered by this program in accordance with the procedures in this section even though an IEP has not been established. Guidance for operators on IEPs is contained in the current edition of Advisory Circular (AC) 120-59, Air Carrier Internal Evaluation Programs. Guidance for operators on the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP) is contained in the current edition of AC 00-58, Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program.
C. Guidance. Varying requirements for select groups of regulated entities require reference to guidance tailored to those groups. To locate appropriate guidance for a given regulated entity, reference must be made to the following paragraphs based on the type of regulated entity submitting the disclosure at, http://av-info.faa.gov/vdrp for a list of those regulated entities authorized to utilize the Web-based VDRP.
1) Air carriers certificated under 14 CFR part 119 and operating under 14 CFR parts 121 and 135, see paragraph 11-12, VDRP for Air Carriers.
2) Regulated entities authorized to utilize the Web-based VDRP system who are not air carriers, see paragraph 11-13, VDRP for Regulated Entities, Other than Air Carriers. Those other regulated entities will be listed on the VDRP Home Page at: http://av-info.faa.gov/vdrp (no login required).
3) Regulated entities not authorized to utilize the Web-based VDRP, see paragraph 11-14 and its associated subparagraphs.
A. Regulations. The VDRP is applicable to the following regulations: 14 CFR parts 21, 39, 119, 121, 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 145, 147 and, for fractional ownership programs operating under part 91 subpart K (part 91K), those portions of part 91K pertaining directly to the duties and responsibilities of the program manager, as defined in part 91K or management specifications (MSpecs).
B. Exceptions. The VDRP has a history of accepting violations that should not have been handled, or should have been handled under special provisions. The following are instances where VDRP does not apply.
1) Individual Airmen. Except as provided in paragraph 11-8, Separate Actions Against Airmen or Other Individual Agents, VDRP does not apply to violations by individual airmen.
2) Hazardous Materials (hazmat). Voluntary disclosure of violations of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) part 175, hazmat should be accomplished in accordance with the current edition of AC 121-37, Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program-Hazardous Materials.
3) Drug and Alcohol. Voluntary disclosure of violations of anti-drug and alcohol misuse prevention program regulations must be reported to the Drug Abatement Division Manager, AAM-800, 800 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591 and will be processed in accordance with directions from that office.
11-3 BACKGROUND. Civil penalties under the FAA's enforcement program have always been considered a means to promote compliance with the FAA's regulations, not an end in themselves. In addition to the deterrence achieved by the appropriate use of civil penalties, the public interest is also served by positive incentives to promote and achieve compliance. The FAA believes that aviation safety is well served by incentives for certificate holders, fractional ownership programs, and PAHs to identify and correct their own instances of noncompliance and to invest more resources in efforts to preclude their recurrence. The FAA's policy of forgoing civil penalty actions when one of these entities detects violations, promptly discloses the violations to the FAA, and takes prompt corrective action to ensure that the same or similar violations do not recur is designed to encourage compliance with FAA regulations, foster safe operating practices, and promote the development of IEPs.
11-4 KEY TERMS. The following key terms and phrases are defined to ensure a standard interpretation and understanding of the FAA voluntary disclosure policy.
B. Comprehensive Fix. A comprehensive fix is an action, or actions, proposed by the certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH and accepted by the principal inspector (PI) to preclude recurrence of the apparent violation that has been voluntarily disclosed under this program. A schedule of the dates and events encompassed by the comprehensive fix must be established and included in a letter of correction.
C. Satisfactory Fix. A satisfactory fix is a comprehensive fix, in which all corrective measures have been completed on schedule and are satisfactory to the FAA.
D. PI. Under the VDRP, PI refers to the appropriate maintenance, avionics, operations inspector, or other designated FAA official of the program office responsible for oversight of the area of noncompliance involved in the disclosure.
3) Voluntary disclosures by fractional ownership programs are limited to apparent violations pertaining directly to the duties and responsibilities of the program manager, as defined in part 91K and MSpecs.
F. Regulated Entity. A regulated entity is any certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH, authorized to submit voluntary disclosures under the VDRP.
11-5 VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE POLICY. It is FAA policy that open sharing of apparent violations and the cooperative as well as an advisory approach to solving problems will enhance and promote aviation safety. Certificate holders, fractional ownership programs, and PAHs will receive a letter of correction in lieu of civil penalty action for covered instances of noncompliance that are voluntarily disclosed to the FAA in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section.
5) The certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH has developed or is developing a comprehensive fix and schedule of implementation satisfactory to the FAA. The comprehensive fix includes a followup self-audit to ensure that the action taken corrects the noncompliance. This self-audit is in addition to any audits conducted by the FAA.
B. Legal Enforcement Action. Except as specified in the subparagraphs below, the FAA ordinarily will not forgo legal enforcement action if the certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH informs the FAA of the apparent violation during, or in anticipation of, an FAA investigation/inspection or in association with an accident or incident.
1) Exceptions-Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) Report. If the FAA has learned of an apparent violation by a certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH from an ASAP report as described in the current edition of AC 120-66, Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), a voluntary disclosure can still be accepted by the FAA, even though the FAA has already learned of the violation from the ASAP.
2) Exceptions-Joint Audit. Similarly, if a regulated entity voluntarily agrees to conduct a joint audit (inspection) with the FAA during which an apparent violation is discovered either by the company or FAA members of the audit (inspection) team, the FAA may accept a voluntary disclosure submitted by the company, even though the FAA has already learned of the apparent violation during the course of the joint audit (inspection).
11-6 REPEATED VIOLATIONS. If following FAA closure of an investigative package resulting from a voluntary disclosure, the same or similar violations are discovered to have occurred prior to submission of the associated voluntary disclosure, the FAA does not reopen the case unless it determines that the pertinent regulated entity failed to comply with all the elements of the comprehensive fix agreed upon by the FAA and the entity.
11-7 DISPUTE RESOLUTION. When disputes occur regarding the acceptance of a proposed comprehensive fix, or a modification to that before the fix is considered satisfactory, the PI and the pertinent regulated entity may request that the issue be resolved at the next level of management within the FAA. This procedure will provide for an independent assessment of the areas in disagreement.
11-8 SEPARATE ACTIONS AGAINST AIRMEN OR OTHER INDIVIDUAL AGENTS.
4) The employing certificate holder immediately notifies the FAA of both the airman or other agent's apparent violation and the apparent deficiency in its practice or procedures.
B. If All Criteria Conditions Are Met. When all the above conditions are met, a separate Enforcement Investigation Report (EIR) is opened for the individual and closed with no more than administrative action in accordance with the current edition of FAA Order 2150.3, Compliance and Enforcement Program.
C. If All Criteria Conditions Are Not Met. If all the above conditions are not met, the PI will review all facts associated with the case and determine what action is appropriate for individual airmen or other agents of the employing entity.
NOTE: This provision does not apply to matters concerning qualifications to hold an airman certificate.
D. ASAP Report. Special provisions exist for apparent violations by certificate holders when a voluntary disclosure is made based on information in an ASAP report. In such cases, the FAA may, at its sole discretion, accept the corrective action recommended by an ASAP event review committee (ERC) for an accepted ASAP report as the comprehensive fix for the voluntary disclosure. This is acceptable when the following conditions all apply, even when an apparent employee qualification or competency issue is involved.
2) The employee completes the corrective action recommended by the ASAP ERC to the satisfaction of the FAA.
11-9 APPLICABILITY OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) TO SELF‑DISCLOSURE RECORDS. Records submitted to the FAA for review according to the VDRP, including information submitted using the Web-based VDRP system, are protected from release to the public in accordance with the provisions of FAA Order 8000.89, Designation of Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP) Information as Protected from Public Disclosure under 14 CFR Part 193. For that reason, VDRP identifying data, such as the regulated entity's name, identifier, personnel names, etc. should not be entered into PTRS records or other public records at any time.
11-10 REPEATED VIOLATIONS. If a repeated violation occurs, notwithstanding the fact that a comprehensive fix was satisfactorily completed and followed, the procedures outlined in this section may apply to the disclosure of the repeated violation. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the repeated violation, the FAA will determine on a case-by-case basis whether a repeated violation will be covered under this policy. Regulated entities and PIs are encouraged to evaluate the systemic issues and circumstances surrounding each apparent violation. This is particularly important when citing a common regulation. Depending upon the specific circumstances associated with the event, citations of a common regulation may not necessarily be indicative of a common systemic failure.
11-11 REGIONAL FLIGHT STANDARDS DIVISION (RFSD) RESPONSIBILITIES.
A. Web-Based Disclosure Reviews. RFSD managers must assure the conduct of regional division level reviews of the voluntary disclosures submitted through the VDRP system from air carriers under their jurisdiction. These Regional Office (RO) reviews must be accomplished on at least a quarterly basis in order to verify compliance with the voluntary disclosure policies specified in this chapter.
B. Legacy Paper-Based Disclosure Reviews. RFSD managers must assure the conduct of regional division level reviews of voluntary disclosures submitted via the legacy (paper-based) system in accordance with the applicable RO review process.
11-12 VDRP FOR AIR CARRIERS. Effective December 8, 2006, voluntary disclosures by air carriers must be processed utilizing the previously referenced Internet application, even if initial notification to the FAA is accomplished by other means. This Web-based application offers an automated interface for air carriers and FAA inspectors to accomplish the voluntary disclosure process virtually paper-free. In addition, the Web-based VDRP, accessed at http://avinfo.faa.gov/vdrp, provides enhanced capabilities for tracking and managing voluntary disclosures, while protecting all submissions in accordance with the provisions of part 193 and Order 8000.89.
NOTE: This revision incorporates guidance issued in Notice N 8900.39, Requiring Appropriate 14 CFR Part 119 Corporate Officer and FAA Office Manager Signatures for Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP), on May 1, 2008, requiring corporate official and FAA office manager signatures for all voluntary disclosures submitted by air carriers certificated under part 119 for operations under part 121 or part 135.
A. Access to the Web-Based System. Access to the Web-based system requires assignment of login identification and a password, which are obtained via the following means.
1) Air Carrier Representatives. Users named by an air carrier to represent the company on voluntary disclosure issues, will be added to the VDRP Web-based system by a PI assigned certificate responsibilities for that air carrier. Each authorized representative will be issued a unique login identification and password for access to the system. Refer to VDRP User Guide at https://av-info.faa.gov/VDRP/UserGuide.pdf or, contact VDRP Help Desk at 866-285-4942 for additional information.
· FAA personnel not assigned as a PI who require access to the system will be added to the system by a PI, utilizing the "Add User" functionality.
· Hours of operation: 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CST Monday through Friday.
· Telephone numbers: Toll-free at 866-285-4942 or at 405-954-7272.
C. General Web-Based System Information. The Web-based VDRP is accessible anywhere with an Internet connection, on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week basis, subject to access privileges granted in accordance with subparagraph 11-12A.
1) Internal tracking and email alerts simplify management of voluntary self-disclosures.
2) Online data entry provides a streamlined and automated VDRP process.
· It is secure, only authenticated users can access the Web-based VDRP system. All transactions are encrypted using 128-bit Secure Socket Layer (SSL) technology.
1) Air Carrier. An air carrier is responsible for submitting the voluntary disclosure, completing the written report, and implementing corrective actions satisfactory to the PI.
2) FAA Inspectors. A PI, or his or her designee, is assigned to a voluntary disclosure. The assigned inspector is responsible for reviewing and accepting (or declining) submissions from the air carrier (i.e., initial notification, written report and any revisions to the written report/corrective actions). In addition, the PI will issue a letter of correction (or other administrative action, as appropriate), while confirming implementation of the corrective actions agreed upon with the air carrier. The PI will close the VDRP file upon satisfactory implementation of the corrective action(s), or open an enforcement investigation if the air carrier should fail to implement the corrective action as detailed in the letter of correction.
1) FAA Inspector. Login information will be provided via internal channels.
2) Air Carrier. Contact your FAA certificate-holding district office (CHDO) to obtain access information.
F. User Support. The VDRP system provides context sensitive help for every web form of the application. Online help is available within the Web-based application. In addition, the VDRP Users Guide contains detailed explanation of the VDRP web application, descriptions of VDRP terms, functions and features of VDRP. This is available at the VDRP Web site.
G. The Six Stages of the VDRP for Air Carriers. The Web-based VDRP employs a six stage process. Responsibility for each stage is assigned to either the air carrier or the FAA, as described below.
1) Stage 1: Notification to FAA of an Apparent Violation. Except as specified below, the voluntary disclosure policy applies only when notification of an apparent violation is made to the FAA by the certificate holder, immediately after the apparent violation has been discovered by that air carrier, and before the FAA learns of the apparent violation by some other means.
a) Notification of a disclosure to FAA will normally be made via the Web-based system, unless extenuating circumstances prevent initial notification using that venue. The Web-based VDRP system contains provisions for indicating that the notification process was initiated utilizing another form of media. When acceptable to the PI, initial notice of a voluntary disclosure may be submitted orally, via a written hardcopy, or by electronic copy; provided, the air carrier enters the initial notification data via the Web-based VDRP system within 72 hours of the original notification. Compliance with the 10- (or 30-) day limit for submission of the written report will be based on the date of the original notification, regardless of the submission means or media.
1. A brief description of the apparent violation, including an estimate of the duration of time that it remained undetected, as well as how and when it was discovered.
2. Verification that noncompliance ceased after it was identified.
3. A brief description of the immediate action taken after the apparent violation was identified, the immediate action taken to terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, and the person responsible for taking the immediate action.
· The corrective steps necessary to prevent the apparent violation from recurring.
5. Identification of the person responsible for preparing the comprehensive fix.
· The company will develop a proposed comprehensive fix for FAA consideration to prevent future reoccurrences of the violation.
NOTE: The Web-based VDRP allows upload of documents (photos, text documents, letters, etc.) by the air carrier at Stage I and Stage III and upload by the FAA in Stages II, IV, V and VI, to enable the attachment of whatever documents may be required to support their submissions.
2) Stage II: FAA Response to Certificate Holder (Air Carrier). The PI will review the Web-based submission from the air carrier and respond in a timely manner. If the original submission from the air carrier was made via an alternative media (e.g., telephone, fax, etc.), the PI may respond via an alternative means, but must also respond to the subsequent Web-based submission by the air carrier.
1. The air carrier has notified the FAA of the apparent violation immediately after detecting it and before the Agency has learned of it by other means.
2. The apparent violation was inadvertent.
3. The apparent violation does not indicate a lack, or reasonable question, of qualification of the air carrier.
4. Immediate action, satisfactory to the FAA, was taken upon discovery to terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation.
5. The air carrier certificate has developed, or is developing, a comprehensive fix and schedule of implementation satisfactory to the FAA. The comprehensive fix includes a followup self-audit to ensure that the action taken corrects the noncompliance. This self-audit is in addition to any audits conducted by the FAA.
· Acknowledgement that the company has developed or is developing a proposed comprehensive fix for FAA consideration to prevent future reoccurrences of the violation.
NOTE: The determination to accept or reject the voluntary disclosure is to be made on the basis of the information required to be presented by the air carrier (as noted in subparagraphs 11-12G1)b)1-7) and any other information known to the FAA at that time. Acceptance of the voluntary disclosure at this stage is not a final determination of acceptability under VDRP. Should subsequent investigation reveal the disclosure fails to meet the requirements set forth in subparagraphs G2)a)1-6 or, it is determined that a violation did not occur, the case may be rescinded and enforcement action taken if appropriate. If the CHDO has sufficient evidence, independent of the materials provided by the air carrier as part of its submission under VDRP, to proceed with enforcement action, enforcement action will be initiated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the current edition of Order 2150.3. Inspectors should be aware that rescinding the case in the Web-based system also closes the VDRP record in Enforcement Information System (EIS) with a "No Action" code. However, such closure of the VDRP record does not preclude the inspector from opening an enforcement investigation and proceeding with enforcement action.
b) Once the PI completes the review and makes a determination to accept or reject the voluntary disclosure, the PI will complete the required VDRP entries for Stage II and submit his or her input via the Web-based system. Upon submission by the PI, the VDRP system will alert the office manager via email, that the file is awaiting his or her review.
c) Office manager review of PI determination to accept or reject the voluntary disclosure.
1. If the office manager indicates concurrence with the PI's determination and selects, "Submit", Stage II is concluded and the record will advance into Stage III, which triggers automated notification to the air carrier of the acceptance and opening of the EIR, including automated assignment of an EIR number to the report.
2. If the office manager indicates nonconcurrence with the PI's recommendation, the case will be referred back to the PI for reconsideration with whatever comments have been entered by the office manager. The case will not advance to Stage III nor will it be closed as an invalid submission until the office manager submits concurrence with the PI's determination.
NOTE: If, at any time subsequent to acceptance of the disclosure, the FAA becomes aware that the disclosure did not meet the requirements set forth for acceptance under the VDRP, the acceptance may be withdrawn. In such cases, as well in those cases where it is subsequently determined that a violation did not occur, the Web-based system provides the option of "rescinding" a case, which closes it without action within the VDRP. If the CHDO has sufficient evidence, independent of the materials provided by the air carrier as part of its submission under VDRP, to proceed with enforcement action, enforcement action should be initiated in accordance with the procedures set forth in Order 2150.3.
3) Stage III: Written Report of the Air Carrier's Apparent Violation. The written report should be submitted by the air carrier, to the PI, via the Web-based VDRP system, within 10 working-days. This report must contain a detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, and a time schedule for completion of the fix. If a proposed comprehensive fix is not fully developed within 10 working-days, the pertinent regulated entity should provide at least an overview of its comprehensive fix plans in a written report submitted within 10 working-days after the initial notification was made. In any event, a detailed description of the comprehensive fix should be submitted within 30 calendar-days after initial notification.
1. A list of the specific FAA regulations that may have been violated.
2. A description of the apparent violation, including the duration of time it remained undetected, as well as how and when it was detected.
3. A description of the immediate action taken to terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, including when it was taken, and who was responsible for taking the action.
4. An explanation that shows the apparent violation was inadvertent.
5. Evidence that demonstrates the seriousness of the apparent violation and the air carrier's analysis of that evidence.
6. Completion of a Risk Assessment Matrix to aid in evaluating the significance of the event.
7. A detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, and a time schedule for completion of the comprehensive fix, including a self audit following implementation of the corrective action(s).
8. Identification of the company official(s) responsible for monitoring the implementation and completion of the comprehensive fix.
4) Stage IV: Written Report Review by the FAA. The FAA works with the certificate holder to ensure that the air carrier has identified any root causes and systemic issues which led to the apparent violation. In this stage, the PI is also tasked with completing a Risk Assessment Matrix to aid in evaluating the significance of the event and the proposed comprehensive fix. This collaboration helps to ensure that the corrective actions contained in the comprehensive fix are acceptable to the FAA.
NOTE: Should investigation of the apparent violation result in the determination that no violation has occurred, the EIR may be closed by rescinding the file and providing an explanation in the provided comment box. When submitted, the user is provided a warning that submitting this action (rescinding the file) will close the case and terminate the investigation. If the inspector confirms the rescission, the case is closed in VDRP that date and will be closed in the EIS 10 days later, with the original date of closure recorded in EIS. The 10-day delay is provided to enable the FAA to re-open the file within that 10-day "window" if deemed necessary.
5) Stage V: Implementation of a Comprehensive Fix and FAA Surveillance.
a) During the implementation period, the FAA and the pertinent air carrier should continue to work together. The FAA may advise and assist the entity in correcting any identified systemic problems. Changes will be made to the proposed comprehensive fix when the need is identified. Upon determining that the initial implementation of the proposed comprehensive fix is satisfactory, the PI may issue a letter of correction in Stage V. Alternatively, the PI may elect instead to issue the letter of correction in Stage VI, if deemed appropriate. If the letter of correction is issued in Stage V, and subsequent changes are made to the comprehensive fix, the PI will issue and upload a revised letter of correction in Stage VI which reflects the letter of correction as implemented.
b) The FAA monitors the implementation of the corrective steps. Throughout the implementation period, the FAA assesses the pertinent air carrier's corrective efforts and top management's awareness of these efforts. If, during this period, the FAA determines that the steps taken by the air carrier are not those documented in the comprehensive fix and acceptable corrective action by the air carrier is not forthcoming, the letter of correction may be rescinded, and appropriate legal enforcement action initiated.
6) Stage VI: Inspector Sign-off. At the conclusion of the implementation period, the PI and the certificate-holding office manager will make a final assessment. Consultation with regional specialists, legal counsel, or other FAA personnel may be accomplished when deemed appropriate by the PI or the office manager.
a) If all elements of the comprehensive fix have been satisfactorily accomplished, including the followup self audit by the air carrier, the PI will enter the required data and submit the entries required for Stage VI completion.
b) Upon Stage VI submission by the PI, the VDRP system will alert the office manager via email, that the file is awaiting the manager's review. The office manager will then log into the VDRP system, review the VDRP file and assess the adequacy of the comprehensive fix and its implementation. The office manager will make a determination as to whether the implementation of the comprehensive fix was satisfactorily accomplished.
1. If the office manager concurs with the PI's determination, Stage VI is concluded upon the manager's concurrence submission, and the VDRP system will automatically generate Form 2150-5, Self Disclosure Worksheet and close the associated EIR record in the EIS.
2. If the office manager does not concur with the PI's recommendation, the case will be referred back to the PI for reconsideration with whatever comments have been entered by the office manager. The case will not advance out of Stage VI until resubmitted by the PI and the office manager submits concurrence with the PI's determination.
NOTE: If, following FAA closure of the investigative package resulting from a voluntary disclosure, the same or similar violations are discovered to have occurred prior to submission of the associated voluntary disclosure, the FAA does not reopen the case unless it determines that the pertinent air carrier failed to comply with all the elements of the comprehensive fix agreed upon by the FAA and the entity.
c) Once, the case is closed in VDRP, the case will close in EIS 10 days later, with the original date of closure recorded in EIS. The 10-day delay is provided to enable the FAA to re-open the file within that 10-day "window" if deemed necessary.
11-13 VDRP FOR REGULATED ENTITIES, OTHER THAN AIR CARRIERS. This section is directed to those regulated entities, other than air carriers, which are required to utilize the Web-based VDRP system. Currently, the VDRP system is in the process of being incrementally modified to enable its use by such additional regulated entities. In order to review a list of regulated entities, other than air carriers, currently required to utilize the Web-based VDRP system see https://av-info.faa.gov/vdrp; no login required to access this list.
A. Access to the Web-Based VDRP System by a Regulated Entity, Other Than Air Carrier Representatives. Access by regulated entity representatives to the Web-based system requires FAA assignment of login identification and a password, which are obtained by the following means.
1) Regulated Entity Representative Access. Users named by the regulated entity to represent the company on voluntary disclosure issues, will be added to the VDRP Web-based system by a PI assigned certificate responsibilities for that regulated entity. Each authorized representative will be issued a unique login identification and password for access to the system. Refer to VDRP User Guide at https://av-info.faa.gov/VDRP/UserGuide.pdf or, contact VDRP Help Desk at (866) 285-4942 for additional information.
2) FAA Personnel Access. FAA personal may obtain access to the system via one of the following means.
C. General Web-based VDRP System Information. The Web-based VDRP is accessible anywhere with an Internet connection, on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week basis, subject to access privileges granted in accordance with subparagraph 11-13A.
· It is secure, only authenticated users can access the Web-based VDRP system. All transactions are encrypted using 128 bit SSL technology.
1) Regulated Entities. A regulated entity is responsible for submitting the voluntary disclosure, completing the written report, and implementing corrective actions satisfactory to the PI.
2) FAA Inspectors. A PI, or his or her designee, is assigned to a voluntary disclosure. The assigned inspector is responsible for reviewing and accepting (or declining) submissions from the regulated entity (i.e., initial notification, written report and any revisions to the written report/corrective actions). In addition, the PI will issue a letter of correction (or other administrative action, as appropriate), while confirming implementation of the corrective actions agreed upon with the regulated entity. The PI will close the VDRP file upon satisfactory implementation of the corrective action(s), or open an enforcement investigation if the regulated entity should fail to implement the corrective action as detailed in the letter of correction.
2) Regulated Entity. Contact your FAA CHDO to obtain access information.
F. The Six Stages of the VDRP for Regulated Entities Other Than Air Carriers. The Web-based VDRP employs a six stage process. Responsibility for each such stage is assigned either to the regulated entity or the FAA, as described below.
1) Stage I: Notification to FAA of an Apparent Violation. Those regulated entities to which this section applies are required to utilize the Web-based VDRP system for submitting voluntary disclosures to the FAA. Except as specified below, the voluntary disclosure policy applies only when notification of an apparent violation is made to the FAA by the regulated entity immediately after the apparent violation has been discovered by that regulated entity, and before the FAA learns of the apparent violation by some other means.
a) Notification of a disclosure to FAA will normally be made via the Web-based VDRP system unless extenuating circumstances prevent initial notification using that venue. The Web-based VDRP system contains provisions for indicating that the notification process was begun via another media. When acceptable to the PI, initial notice by an authorized user of the Web-based VDRP may be submitted orally, via a written hardcopy, or by electronic copy; provided, the regulated entity enters the initial notification data via the Web-based VDRP system within 72 hours of the original notification. However, compliance with the 10- (or 30-) day limit for submission of the written report will be based on the date of the original notification, regardless of the submission means or media.
NOTE: The Web-based VDRP allows upload of documents (photos, text documents, etc.) by the regulated entity at Stage I and Stage III and by the FAA at Stages II, IV, V and VI.
2) Stage II: FAA Response to the Regulated Entity. The PI will review the Web-based submission from the regulated entity and respond in a timely manner. If the original submission from the regulated entity was made via an alternative media (e.g., telephone, fax, etc.), the PI may respond via an alternative means, but must also respond to the subsequent Web-based submission by the regulated entity.
1. The regulated entity has notified the FAA of the apparent violation immediately after detecting it and before the Agency has learned of it by other means.
3. The apparent violation does not indicate a lack, or reasonable question, of qualification of the regulated entity.
5. The regulated entity has developed, or is developing, a comprehensive fix and schedule of implementation satisfactory to the FAA. The comprehensive fix includes a followup self-audit to ensure that the action taken corrects the noncompliance. This self-audit is in addition to any audits conducted by the FAA.
b) Once the PI completes the review and makes a determination to accept or reject the voluntary disclosure, the PI will complete the required VDRP entries for Stage II and submit his or her input via the Web-based system.
c) If the disclosure is accepted by the PI, the VDRP system will automatically notify the regulated entity via email and assign an EIR number to the file. The PI is also provided with the option to return the notification to the regulated entity for additional editing or to reject the disclosure as being invalid. A voluntary disclosure is found to be invalid when the PI determines the disclosure fails to meet the requirements set forth for acceptance under the VDRP. In all cases, the regulated entity receives email notice of the determination by the PI.
NOTE: The determination to accept or reject the voluntary disclosure is to be made on the basis of the information required to be presented by the air carrier (as noted in subparagraphs 11-13F1)b)1-6) and any other information known to the FAA at that time. Acceptance of the voluntary disclosure at this stage is not a final determination of acceptability under VDRP. Should subsequent investigation reveal the disclosure fails to meet the requirements set forth in subparagraphs 11-13F2)a)1-5 or, it is determined that a violation did not occur, the case may be rescinded and enforcement action taken if appropriate. If the CHDO has sufficient evidence, independent of the materials provided by the air carrier as part of its submission under VDRP, to proceed with enforcement action, enforcement action will be initiated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the current edition of Order 2150.3. Inspectors should be aware that rescinding the case in the web-based system also closes the VDRP record in EIS with a "No Action" code. However, such closure of the VDRP record does not preclude the inspector from opening an enforcement investigation and proceeding with Enforcement action.
3) Stage III: Written Report of the Regulated Entity's Apparent Violation. The written report should be submitted by the regulated entity to the PI, via the Web-based VDRP system, within 10 working-days. This report must contain a detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, a time schedule for completion of the fix, and including scheduling of the self-audit following completion of the comprehensive fix. If a proposed comprehensive fix is not fully developed within 10 working-days, the pertinent regulated entity should provide at least an overview of its comprehensive fix plans in a written report submitted within 10 working-days after the initial notification was made. In any event, a detailed description of the comprehensive fix should be submitted within 30 calendar-days after initial notification.
5. Evidence that demonstrates the seriousness of the apparent violation and the regulated entity's analysis of that evidence.
7. A detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, and a time schedule for completion of the fix to include a self audit following implementation.
8. Identification of the company official(s) responsible for monitoring the implementation and completion of the comprehensive fix and self-audit.
4) Stage IV: Written Report Review by the FAA. The FAA works with the regulated entity to ensure it has identified any root causes and systemic issues which led to the apparent violation. This collaboration helps to ensure that the corrective actions contained in the comprehensive fix are acceptable to the FAA. In this stage, the PI is also tasked with completing a Risk Assessment Matrix to aid in evaluating the significance of the event and the proposed comprehensive fix.
NOTE: Should investigation of the apparent violation result in the determination that no violation has occurred, the EIR may be closed by rescinding the file and providing an explanation in the provided comment box. When submitted, the user is provided a warning that submitting this action (rescinding the file) will close the case and terminate the investigation. If the inspector confirms the rescission, the case is closed in VDRP that date and will close in EIS 10 days later, with the original date of closure recorded in EIS. The 10-day delay is provided to enable the FAA to re-open the file within that 10-day "window" if deemed necessary.
a) During the implementation period, the FAA and the pertinent regulated entity should continue to work together. The FAA may advise and assist the entity in correcting any identified systemic problems. Changes will be made to the proposed comprehensive fix when the need is identified. Upon determining that the initial implementation of the proposed comprehensive fix is satisfactory, the PI may issue a letter of correction in Stage V. The PI may elect to issue the letter of correction in Stage VI if deemed appropriate. If the letter of correction is issued in Stage V, and subsequent changes are made to the comprehensive fix, the PI will issue and upload a revised letter of correction in Stage VI which reflects the letter of correction as implemented.
b) The FAA monitors the implementation of the corrective steps. Throughout the implementation period, the FAA assesses the pertinent regulated entity's corrective efforts and top management's awareness of these efforts. If, during this period, the FAA determines that the steps taken by the entity are not those documented in the comprehensive fix and acceptable corrective action by the regulated entity is not forthcoming, the letter of correction may be rescinded, and appropriate legal enforcement action initiated.
6) Stage VI: Inspector Sign-Off. At the conclusion of the implementation period, the PI makes a final assessment. If all elements of the comprehensive fix, including satisfactory completion of the self-audit, have been adequately accomplished, the PI finds the fix satisfactory and closes the case. The case remains subject to rescission and initiation of appropriate legal enforcement action in the event that the agreed-upon actions, outlined in the comprehensive fix, are not completed to the satisfaction of the FAA.
a) The PI has the authority to close the case. Consultation with regional specialists, legal counsel, or other FAA personnel may be accomplished when deemed appropriate by the PI.
NOTE: If, following FAA closure of the investigative package resulting from a voluntary disclosure, the same or similar violations are discovered to have occurred prior to submission of the associated voluntary disclosure, the FAA does not reopen the case unless it determines that the pertinent regulated entity failed to comply with all the elements of the comprehensive fix agreed upon by the FAA and the entity.
b) Once the case is closed in VDRP, the case will close in EIS 10 days later, with the original date of closure recorded in EIS. The 10 day delay is provided to enable the FAA to reopen the file within that 10-day "window" if deemed necessary.
11-14 VDRP FOR REGULATED ENTITIES NOT AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE THE WEB-BASED VDRP SYSTEM.
A. Applicability. All regulated entities which are authorized to participate in the VDRP, but are not authorized to utilize the VDRP Web-based system will utilize the guidance contained in this section for submission of voluntary disclosures to the FAA. A list of those regulated entities which are authorized to use the Web-based system may be found at https://av-info.faa.gov/vdrp.
B. The Six Stages of the VDRP for Regulated Entities Not Authorized to Use the Web-Based VDRP System. Voluntary disclosure accomplished under this section employ a six stage process, as described below.
a) A brief description of the apparent violation, including an estimate of the duration of time that it remained undetected, as well as how and when it was discovered.
b) Verification that noncompliance ceased after it was identified.
c) A brief description of the immediate action taken after the apparent violation was identified, the immediate action taken to terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, and the person responsible for taking the immediate action.
e) Identification of the person responsible for preparing the comprehensive fix.
f) Acknowledgment that a detailed written report will be provided to the PI within 10 working-days. If a proposed comprehensive fix is not fully developed within 10 working-days, the regulated entity should provide at least an overview of its comprehensive fix plans in a written report submitted within 10 working-days after the initial notification was made. In any event, a detailed description of the comprehensive fix should be submitted within 30 calendar-days after initial notification.
NOTE: Exceptions. If the FAA has learned of an apparent violation by a certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH from an ASAP report as described in AC 120-66, a voluntary disclosure can still be accepted by the FAA, even though the FAA has already learned of the violation from the ASAP. Similarly, if a regulated entity voluntarily agrees to conduct a joint audit (inspection) with the FAA during which an apparent violation is discovered either by the company or FAA members of the audit (inspection) team, the FAA may accept a voluntary disclosure submitted by the company, even though the FAA has already learned of the apparent violation during the course of the joint audit (inspection).
2) Stage II: FAA Response to a Certificate Holder. The PI responds with a written acknowledgment of the entity's initial notification. This acknowledgment includes the request for a written report and is sent in lieu of a letter of investigation, provided the written report is completed in accordance with the voluntary disclosure reporting procedures set forth in this section. The PI will open an EIR that will be closed out with a letter of correction following satisfactory development and implementation of a comprehensive fix as provided by schedule of implementation agreed upon by the FAA and the entity.
b) The air carrier has notified the FAA of the apparent violation immediately after detecting it and before the Agency has learned of it by other means.
c) The apparent violation was inadvertent.
d) The apparent violation does not indicate a lack, or reasonable question, of qualification of the air carrier.
e) Immediate action, satisfactory to the FAA, was taken upon discovery to terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation.
f) The air carrier certificate has developed, or is developing, a comprehensive fix and schedule of implementation satisfactory to the FAA. The comprehensive fix includes a followup self-audit to ensure that the action taken corrects the noncompliance. This self-audit is in addition to any audits conducted by the FAA.
NOTE: The determination to accept or reject the voluntary disclosure is to be made on the basis of the information required to be presented by the air carrier (as noted in subparagraphs 11-14B1)a)–f)) and any other information known to the FAA at that time. Acceptance of the voluntary disclosure at this stage is not a final determination of acceptability under VDRP. Should subsequent investigation reveal the disclosure fails to meet the requirements set forth in subparagraphs 11-14B2)a)–f) or, it is determined that a violation did not occur, the case may be rescinded and enforcement action taken if appropriate. If the CHDO has sufficient evidence, independent of the materials provided by the air carrier as part of its submission under VDRP, to proceed with enforcement action, enforcement action will be initiated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the current edition of Order 2150.3. Inspectors should be aware that rescinding the case in the web-based system also closes the VDRP record in EIS with a "No Action" code. However, such closure of the VDRP record does not preclude the inspector from opening an enforcement investigation and proceeding with Enforcement action.
3) Stage III: Written Report of the Regulated Entity's Apparent Violation. A written report should be provided by the regulated entity to the PI within 10 working-days after the initial notification was made. This report must contain a detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, and a time schedule for completion of the fix. If a proposed comprehensive fix is not fully developed within 10 working-days, the pertinent regulated entity should provide at least an overview of its comprehensive fix plans in a written report submitted within 10 working-days after the initial notification was made. In any event, a detailed description of the comprehensive fix should be submitted within 30 calendar-days after initial notification. In summary, the written report should include the following information (a sample format for this report is provided in subparagraph 11-14B3)h)).
a) A list of the specific FAA regulations that may have been violated.
b) A description of the apparent violation, including the duration of time it remained undetected, as well as how and when it was detected.
c) A description of the immediate action taken to terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, including when it was taken, and who was responsible for taking the action.
d) An explanation that shows the apparent violation was inadvertent.
e) Evidence that demonstrates the seriousness of the apparent violation and the regulated entity's analysis of that evidence.
f) A detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, a time schedule for completion of the fix and a self-audit, following completion of the fix, to ensure the action taken corrects the non-compliance.. If a proposed comprehensive fix is not fully developed within 10 working-days, the pertinent regulated entity should provide at least an overview of its comprehensive fix plans in a written report submitted within 10 working-days after the initial notification was made. In any event, a detailed description of the comprehensive fix should be submitted within 30 calendar-days after initial notification.
g) Identification of the company official responsible for monitoring the implementation, completion of the comprehensive fix and followup self edit.
h) Sample Written Report Format. The following sample in Figure 11-1 is only a suggested format to be followed when preparing the written report that will be submitted to the FAA. While a regulated entity should include at least all the elements specified below, the structure of the written report can be modified by the regulated entity to fit its particular needs.
4) Stage IV: Written Report Review by the FAA. The FAA works with the certificate holder to ensure that the regulated entity has identified any root causes and systemic issues which led to the apparent violation. This collaboration helps to ensure that the corrective actions contained in the comprehensive fix are acceptable to the FAA.
5) Stage V: Implementation of Comprehensive Fix and FAA surveillance.
a) During the implementation period, the FAA and the pertinent regulated entity should continue to work together. The FAA may advise and assist the entity in correcting any identified systemic problems. Changes will be made to the proposed comprehensive fix when the need is identified. Upon determining that the initial implementation of the proposed comprehensive fix is satisfactory, the PI may issue a letter of correction in Stage V. If the letter of correction is issued in Stage V, and subsequent changes are made to the comprehensive fix, the PI will issue an amendment to the letter of correction which reflects the letter of correction as implemented.
6) Stage VI: Inspector Sign-Off. At the conclusion of the implementation period, the PI makes a final assessment. If all elements of the comprehensive fix have been adequately accomplished, including a satisfactory self-audit by the regulated entity, the PI finds the fix satisfactory and closes the case. The case remains subject to reopening in the event that the agreed-upon actions, outlined in the comprehensive fix, are not completed to the satisfaction of the FAA. A statement of followup investigation, confirming that the comprehensive fix was satisfactorily implemented and completed, is prepared to complete the FAA's investigative package.
b) If, following FAA closure of the investigative package resulting from a voluntary disclosure, the same or similar violations are discovered to have occurred prior to submission of the associated voluntary disclosure, the FAA does not reopen the case unless it determines that the pertinent regulated entity failed to comply with all the elements of the comprehensive fix agreed upon by the FAA and the entity.
C. Repeated Violations. If, following FAA closure of the investigative package resulting from a voluntary disclosure, the same or similar violations are discovered to have occurred prior to submission of the associated voluntary disclosure, the FAA does not reopen the case unless it determines that the pertinent regulated entity failed to comply with all the elements of the comprehensive fix agreed upon by the FAA and the entity.
D. Dispute Resolution. When disputes occur regarding the acceptance of a proposed comprehensive fix, or a modification thereto before the fix is considered satisfactory, the PI and the pertinent regulated entity may request that the issue be resolved at the next level of management within the FAA. This procedure will provide for an independent assessment of the areas in disagreement.
E. Separate Actions Against Airmen or Other Individual Agents.
d) The employing regulated entity immediately notifies the FAA of both the airman or other agent's apparent violation and the apparent deficiency in its practice or procedures.
2) When all the above conditions are met, a separate EIR is opened for the individual and closed with no more than administrative action in accordance with Order 2150.3.
3) If all the above conditions are not met, the PI will review all facts associated with the case and determine what action is appropriate for individual airmen or other agents of the employing entity.
4) This provision does not apply to matters concerning qualifications to hold an airman certificate.
· The employee completes the corrective action recommended by the ASAP ERC to the satisfaction of the FAA.
2) Certificate type or equivalent.
3) Pertinent regulated entity number or equivalent.
6) Company official filing report.
B. Description of Apparent Violation.
1) Applicable part of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
2) Date apparent violation was discovered.
4) Company official who discovered the apparent violation.
· Date and time of initial notification to the FAA.
· Name of FAA official notified (principal inspector (PI)).
C. Company Official Responsible for Immediate Action.
D. Duration of Time Apparent Violation Remained Undetected-Hours, Cycles, or Days.
E. Summary of Apparent Violation. The summary should be a brief statement that describes the nature of the apparent violation and identifies the specific aircraft, engines, appliances, facilities, checkpoint, gate, cargo, and/or individuals associated with the apparent violation.
1) When immediate action was taken.
2) Description of immediate action. This description should outline the immediate steps that were taken to end the violation.
3) Company official responsible for immediate action.
1) Summary of evidence. This summary should describe the scope of the apparent violation and explain how it was detected. In addition, conclusions reached regarding possible or probable systemic deficiencies (i.e., who, what, when, why, and how the noncompliance occurred) should be described.
2) Reasons why the apparent violation was inadvertent.
3) Supporting documentation. The evidence associated with the apparent violation should be attached. This evidence should include a statement regarding how the regulated entity determined the extent of the apparent violation.
1) Whether the apparent violation involves equipment, facilities, or individuals beyond those addressed in the initial notification and for which immediate action was taken.
2) Whether procedural or organizational changes are necessary.
3) How it will be determined whether any procedural or organizational changes are effective.
4) What procedures will be developed to ensure that the affected area is periodically reviewed in the future so that concerns can be identified before a violation occurs.
5) Who will be responsible for performing periodic reviews.
6) To whom in the regulated entity's organization the results of those periodic reviews will be reported, and how they will be documented?
I. Responsibility for Monitoring the Implementation of the Comprehensive Fix.
J. FAA Acceptance (To be Completed by the FAA).
A. Block 18 Regulations Believed Violated. If more than one regulation is cited, list them in order of importance. The primary 14 CFR violated should be listed first.
B. Codes Applicable to the Form 2150–5. Figures 11-1 through 11-7 may be utilized to determine the appropriate coding for the Form 2150-5.
NOTE: These codes are also contained in drop-down menus within in the Web-based VDRP, when utilizing the Web-based VDRP.
This paragraph is applicable only to those regulated entities submitting disclosures via the legacy, paper-based system.
This checklist should remain with the self-disclosure package until it is completed and should then be removed and discarded by the reporting inspector.
______ 1. Upon receipt of a notification of self-disclosure, complete the "FAA Acknowledgment of Receipt of Certificate Holders Initial Notification of Self-Disclosure" form. Send original to the certificate holder and keep one (1) copy for file.
NOTE: An extension to the 10 calendar-day time limit referenced in the Acknowledgement of Receipt (Figure 11-10) may be granted if requested by the certificate holder. However, in accordance with the current edition of AC 00-58, a detailed description of the comprehensive fix should be provided in writing to the principal inspector within 30 calendar-days.
______ 2. Determine, to the extent possible, that no FAA investigation of the reported violation is already underway.
______ 3. Open appropriate administrative action PTRS entry in the computer.
NOTE: Entries in PTRS should not include reference to identifying data, such as name of the regulated entity, an FAA designator for the regulated entity, names of personnel assigned to the operator, registration number of the aircraft, etc., as PTRS data is commonly released under FOIA, while VDRP data is protected from release under FOIA. Reference to the EIR number may be made, as identifying data is not recorded in EIS for cases handled under the VDRP.
______ 4. If the proposed comprehensive fix and the initial implementation of that fix are deemed acceptable by the principal inspector (or his or her designee), a letter of correction will be sent to the certificate holder.
NOTE: In accordance with the current edition of FAA Order 2150.3 (Chapter 5, Par 3e), any case involving Corrective Action, cannot be closed until the Corrective Action has been completed by the regulated entity and found to be satisfactory by the FAA.
______ 5. Complete FAA Form 2150-5 in the computer and print out a copy for the file.
______ 6. Following issuance of the letter of correction and closure of the VDRP investigation, close the PTRS entry referenced in item 3 above.
This paragraph is applicable only to those regulated entities submitting disclosures via the legacy, paper-based system. Time and date of receipt are recorded by Web-based VDRP system upon submission by the certificate holder. Reply to certificate holder is automated in the Web-based VDRP system upon FAA acceptance in Stage II.
At that time, the above named company official advised me of the immediate steps taken to cease the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation and stated that an investigation is underway to determine what remedial actions may be necessary to prevent a recurrence of the finding.
In accordance with the current edition of AC 00-58, Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program, this acknowledgment will serve in lieu of a letter of investigation. However, should we discover prior to receipt of your written report, that the apparent violation was already under investigation by the FAA, we will notify you and proceed with that investigation and this self disclosure will be denied. We expect your complete written report of this incident including a detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix outlining the planned corrective steps within 10 calendar-days (or 30 calendar-days if so approved) of this initial notification.
RESERVED. Paragraphs 11-16 through 11-34.


text:
AgricultureScience
Cheap Flowers & Mangoes That Last Longer: Women Scientists & Their Solutions For Farmers!
By Gopi Karelia
From bananas that keep fungus at bay to mushrooms that grow on agri-waste, these women have been working for years to take care of your health, helping farmers and safeguarding the environment!
It is hard to stop and take in the fragrance of roses these days. Not just because our fast-paced lives do not allow us to do so but also because generations of breeding and using unnatural fertilisers and chemicals have hampered the scent of roses.
It was the same situation for Shivkote Subramanyam, a small-time rose cultivator in Bengaluru, six months ago.
Although he was happy with the money he was making, he was not satisfied with the quality of the roses. "The smell would fade away faster compared to the roses I got as a child," he tells The Better India.
Today, the 35-year-old's income has not only doubled but the quality of red roses or 'Arka Swadesh' as they are known, has improved significantly.
A small-time rose cultivator's income increased
The shining foliaged roses are longer than the average length of 30-90 cm in a polyhouse. It has an yielding capacity of 5-6 kilos in 10 Gunta of land, says Shivkote.
The brainchild behind Shivkote's prosperous yield is Dr Tejaswini, principal scientist at the Division of Ornamental and Medicinal Crops at the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR) in Bengaluru.
Dr Tejaswini and her team have developed several varieties of high-yielding marigolds and roses that are rich in antioxidants.
Like her, several scientists at IIHR have been instrumental in increasing the horticulture output, thus improving the lives of farmers.
Here are a few other examples:
1. Increasing shelf-life of mangoes
Kamala Jayanthi, the scientist who has been working towards safer mangoes
For the last 14 years, Kamala Jayanthi has been working on removing common pests from crops without using any chemicals. In 2010, the principal scientist at the Division of Entomology and Nematology finally got the breakthrough.
"Flies attacking the produce when they are ready to harvest is a huge loss that farmers go through. Hence, they resort to inorganic methods to kill them. Fruit flies, especially the female ones, are attracted to a compound in mangoes called gamma-octalactone," Jayanthi tells The Better India.
The 60-year-old scientist found a solution called Arka Dorsolure F, a paper trap that lures the female fruit flies to lay eggs on them. The solution has been sent for patenting, after which, it will be sold commercially.
"It will be a low-cost solution and hypothetically, one trap can cut down 1,200 flies from going to the next generation. After six generations, there will be immense pest suppression," she adds.
2. Using agri-waste management systems to grow mushrooms
Meera Pandey, the scientist who recommends mushrooms for a healthier life
Making it a win-win situation for farmers, Meera Pandey, principal scientist at the Mushroom Research Laboratory has come up with a solution that uses agri-waste management systems to grow mushrooms.
Speaking to The Better India, she says, "I have been working on mushroom production since the last 35 years and I strongly believe that it should be made a part of everyone's daily diet.
Tonnes of agricultural waste is burnt every year, causing rampant air pollution."
The devised mushroom cultivation package provides seeds and training in technology and skills upgradation for farmers and entrepreneurs. It can be used for different varieties of mushrooms, including oyster, paddy straw and Shiitake mushrooms.
IIHR's department of engineering has developed a machine for seed production for mushroom cultivation which is highly labour-intensive.
IIHR provides seed bags at Rs 15 to women in rural areas, which can harvest 300 grams of mushroom in 20 days. The institute has also collaborated with commercial growers to increase the overall mushroom cultivation.
Highlighting the benefits of mushrooms, Meera says, "Mushrooms are anti-cancerous and packed with vitamins and minerals. There is the need for a massive awareness drive."
The cost of cultivation for one kilo of mushroom is around Rs 30. The production cost is 120 kg per day, amounting to four tonnes a month. The average rate of mushrooms is Rs 100 per kilo.
3. Banana that is resistant to fungus
Rekha A is a scientist at the Division of Fruit Crops. She is developing a solution which will prevent fungus that rots banana.
"Fusarium wilt caused by a fungus damages the sweet and delicate Elakki Bale [banana variety] of Karnataka," said Rekha A. "It also harms the Rasthali variety. We have developed intermediate hybrids that will be useful for the development of resistant cultivated types," Rekha told Scroll.in.
The scientist is now studying the water stress on banana as the plants use a lot of water. She is analysing varieties of the crop that use less water.
Also Read: 78-YO Rajasthan Professor's 'Superfood' Farms Have Empowered Local Women Since 1999
From mangoes that last longer, bananas that can keep fungus at bay, high-yielding marigold and roses, to mushrooms that be cultivated from agricultural waste, scientists from the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research are developing natural methods to make horticulture output healthy.
Their efforts not only benefit the environment but also aid small-time farmers and growers like Shivkote.
If you wish to get in touch with them, visit here.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Worldwide Comics Encyclopedia Website > Chapters of the Encyclopedia > By Categories > Locations Category >
A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with a previously independent people with distinct political characteristics. Regardless of the physical geography, in the modern internationally accepted legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937 and reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1945, a resident of a country is subject to the independent exercise of legal jurisdiction, while "Any person visiting a country, other than that in which he usually resides, for a period of at least 24 hours" is defined as a 'foreign tourist'. It is not uncommon for general information or statistical publications to adopt the wider definition for purposes such as illustration and comparison.


Once you stop by Affordable Autos to look for a vehicle, you are going to be satisfied with the selection you have made. Our passionate sales staff is knowledgeable, and here to help you pick the best automobile for you. With many cars to choose from, we can get the right vehicle to match your price range. All of your used car needs can be taken care of at Affordable Autos. Whatever you might need, Affordable Autos can help you in buying any car or truck. Affordable Autos of Heber Springs at 1915 W Main St, Heber Springs, Arkansas 72543 is where to visit when you are planning to purchase a car or truck.


text:
Computing Across America book review – A.N.A.L.O.G. Computing
I find this review most gratifying, and not only because the reviewer enjoyed my book. Michael A. Banks is a writer I've known and respected for years, and his Modem Reference was one of the most-thumbed technical books on my shelf… back before USB <creak>. He was a prolific columnist in the early days of personal computing publishing, and knew well the context from which he speaks in this review. It reminds me to get off my duff and re-issue this book…
I have never owned an Atari, but A.N.A.L.O.G. Computing magazine was the big one in the industry.
by Michael A. Banks
A.N.A.L.O.G. Computing
If Steve Roberts is not a familiar name, it's not for lack of publicity. Roberts has appeared on local, regional and national television scores of times, and he's been written up in magazines ranging from Popular Science to Writer's Digest to Time — as well as many computer magazines.
But I won't leave you frowning in confusion. Steve Roberts is the guy who, in 1983, took off on a bicycling trip across America. But his wasn't just any bicycle, and this wasn't just any trip. The bicycle was a 220-pound recumbent cycle (one in which the rider pedals from a position not unlike lying in a lounge chair). Equipped with dedicated computer and ham radio equipment, a portable computer and solar cells to power the whole thing. Roberts' "Winnebiko," as he dubbed it, was to serve as his home and office for the next 15,000 miles.
The trip itself was an experiment — a breakaway to a new lifestyle — and as much a means as an end. It's an experiment with a techno-nomad lifestyle made possible by personal computers and telecommunications; an experiment that is the precursor of more than a few things in our technological future.
As you might expect, the trip (which continues today with a more advanced vehicle) has been more than interesting; so interesting, in fact, that Steve Roberts has written a book about it. Computing Across America is Steve Roberts' chronicle of 15,000 miles of America, as seen from the seat of a high-tech, computerized bicycle.
When I began reading this book, I expected to see a diary-type recording of events of Roberts' high-tech cycle trip across America, spiced with details about his custom-made recumbent bicycle, ham gear and computers. Well, I found all that in the book, but that was just the beginning, because Roberts didn't stop with just narrating his experiences. In sharing his experiences (more shown to the reader than told), he provides a fascinating picture of the land he traveled and the people he encountered.
Those of you who followed his first round of reports on CompuServe, or who are following the second round on GEnie, will of course be familiar with Roberts' style and technique. Believe me, though, this book is not a simple collection of the on-line chronicles of days past. Some of the content will be familiar, but Roberts has worked to link chapters and events in such a way as to provide a whole that is indeed greater than the sum of its parts.
While the majority of the book is a chronicling of events, it's by no means mere description. Roberts uses all the writer's tools — description, narration, dialogue and even a little suspense now and then, to paint a memorable picture of life in America as viewed from four feet above the ground. To frame the picture, he's used philosophy, techo-talk and personal flashbacks. And, interestingly enough, Roberts manages to show us America — the parts of it through which he's pedaled (Midwest to Key West to the Old West and beyond) — without coloring it overly much with his personality.
Roberts also creates a picture of Roberts, an intensely personal picture that holds no punches. We see flashes of temper, lust, realizations of shortcomings and abilities, and much, much more. I don't doubt that most readers — honest readers — will find a bit of themselves in all this.
This isn't a book for those who don't like four-letter words. Roberts, to drag out the worn-down phrase of the '60s and '70s, tells it like it is. Indeed. From his facing of his own weaknesses and past mistakes, to revealing personal interludes that would please the most candid voyeur, he is candid and mostly tasteful.
Roberts' style is superb — perfect for this kind of book, melding as it does factual detail with human emotions in such ways as to make both equally interesting. And Roberts doesn't force you through the book; instead, he opens the story and invites you in for coffee.
All of this is not to say that the details of Roberts' computers, ham gear and vehicle are de-emphasized. There is technological detail galore, both in terms of what the equipment is and how he uses it, throughout the book. A special appendix contains itemized technical specs and drawings of the bike and its high-tech equipment. In sum, there's so much technical detail here that the book could serve as a primer on the leading edge of personal computer technology as it applies to mobile, cottage-industry business.
Roberts stole quite a chunk of my writing time the week after I bought his book. And that's the best compliment I can give any writer. Recommended.
Copies of Computing Across America are available from the author by mail for the cover price [obsolete details redacted]
Posted in Book reviews and tagged A.N.A.L.O.G., Computing Across America
← The Hobo ConcertoPhotoletter – Computing Across America →


text:
Q: Change value of tuple based on data in other tuple I have two tuples
A=[(1,Poland),(2,Canada),(3,Germany)]
B=[(1,16),(2,20),(3,54)]

How can i merge them together based on the first value of a tuple to get something like this
C=[(Poland,16),(Canada,20),(Germany,54)]

I found This but this answer is from 2015 maybe you know better solution. My data will be at most 10/20 tuples so we aren't dealing with huge datasets

A: If the tuples are always ordered as in the example, this is an easy case and you can simply use zip:
C = []
for a,b in zip(A, B):
    C.append(a[1], b[1])

#  or simply C = [(a[1], b[1]) for a,b in zip(A, B)]

If the order is not guaranteed (which makes the first number actually necessary), I would first convert one list to a dict, and then simply match the couples:
b_dict = dict(B)
C = []
for i, country in A:
    C.append((country, b_dict[i]))

#  or C = [(country, b_dict[i]) for i, country in A]

Of course this might require some handling of edge cases but I will leave that to you.

A: This could be a solution.
[(x[1], y[1]) for y in B for x in A if x[0] == y[0]]

A: This look like a problem for pandas. You can turn them into pandas.Series() objects or pandas.DataFrame() and have the first number of the tuple as the index. Then just use the pandas.DataFrame.merge() to merge by index and you will have the three column dataframe or series.
Alternatively it would have to be a nested loop:
C = []
for i in A:
    for j in B:
        if i[0] == j[0]:
            C.append((i[1], j[1]))

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
This blog has only just begun. In future months, we'll be exploring the vast Russian-related archives of Netflix. I've begun with Land of the Tsars, Part I, a documentary that does a pretty good job of covering the whole of Russian history, right up until the Revolution of 1917.
It's got everything: ninth century viking trading networks; the emergence of "Rus;: the influence of Constantinople; five centuries of Mongol rule; the overthrow of Mongol rule in the 1480s; orthodoxy; the Time of Troubles; the rise of the Romanovs; Peter the Great as reformer, Westernizer, and tyrant; Peter's daughter Elizabeth (who assumed power at age 32 and ruled confidently for 16 years); Peter III (stupid, crude, and Russophobic, he forced his brilliant wife to play toy soldiers in bed and hanged a rat in front of her for treason--worse, he made peace with Frederick the Great when Russian forces were poised to obliterate Prussia, forced priests to dress like Lutherans, and threatened his wife with the nunnery); Catherine the Great (conspirator, lover, Enlightened Despot, and reformer, she created some organs of local government and challenged elite traditions, but nevertheless engaged in ceaseless wars to expand the kingdom in all directions, and put down peasant insurrections--Pugachev's primarily--without compunction); etc.
The Land of Tsars spends a great deal of time on Catherine. After all, her reign so Russia occupy the Black Sea Coast and the Crimea as well as Alaska. There were 30 million Russians living within the Empire at the time, and Russia seemed unlikely to stop expanding in several different directions. Catherine's successor, Paul, was horrendous. He was exceedingly cruel and, like his father, pro-Prussian. He was also in a hurry to revenge his father, even burying Catherine with the man she had overthrown and effectively killed. Paul's brief reign saw hurried and ill-considered reforms that led to his own death. The indirect cause of his murder in 1796 was none other than his own son, and Catherine's favorite, Alexander I. The historians in the film claims Alexander was wracked with guilt over his accession to the thrown and compulsively indecisive, toying with reform but always rejecting it in the end. According to one historian, he was "born confused." Alexander's one great decision was to renew a war with Napoleon, a decision which nearly cost him all of Russia. In the end, Alexander's Russia emerged victorious of course, and Russian armies effectively became the guardians of the conservative, Christian, dynastic order throughout Europe.
What was next for Russia? Some thought liberalism, reform, or at least a constitution were in order. However, the Decembrist Revolt of 1825, inspired by the liberal currents of Western European politics, was put down ruthlessly. Nicholas I had leaders of the movement either executed or exiled to Siberia. Politics remained illegal. Even educated Russians were legally unable to discuss political change of any sort. Where there was no public sphere to debate liberal ideas, and economic and social elites felt humiliated by the autocratic atmosphere of Russia, politics turned inward. Secret societies sprang up. Even so, while the rest of Europe eventually exploded in liberal and democratic revolt in the fateful year of 1848, Russia remained quiescent, the autocracy triumphant. Nicholas I even sent troops to restore the Hapsburg monarchy.
In light of Russia's recent history, the Crimean War came as a shock. Russians were out-gunned by the French and British. The myth of Russian invincibility, born at Borodino, was overturned at a stroke. The Russian elites felt humiliated. Clearly, Russia had become a backward state. Its technology, economy, and perhaps even its whole social and political framework, were pre-industrial, pre-modern. When Nicholas II died, Alexander II conceded defeat to the Western powers and began an ambitious program of national reform and modernization. He encouraged private enterprise, liberal ideas, and the rule of law. Most importantly, he "liberated" the serfs in 1861. At first, the film tells us the Russian educated classes were elated. The tsar was known as the Tar-Liberator. Later, after it became clear that Russian peasants remained impoverished and deeply indebted to landlords under the terms of their emancipation, and that Russian agricultural production was plummeting, the tsar's popularity sharply declined.
Of course, the Tsar Liberator was soon hounded by assassination attempts (the streets emptied whenever he moved about St. Petersburg) and he was eventually murdered by a child of elite parents, illustrating what one historian calls one of the central paradoxes of modern Russian history: the fact that members of the Russian social elite--Lenin included--often became the regime's opponents.
Alexander II was replaced by his son, Alexander III, was cracked down hard against the regime's opponents and reversed Alexander's modest movements toward political devolution. The assassins were executed. Over the next 15 years, Alexander essentially assured that the regime's critics would remain violent, radical, and underground. After all, even as the country hurdled toward industrialization and modernization, the country had a single source of political authority: the person of the tsar.
When Alexander II died in 1897, he was replaced by his son, Nicholas II, who was completed unprepared for the responsibility and admitted as much to himself. The film's historians believe he was completely unsuited to power and, as importantly, unable to compromise his belief in his divine right to rule. His wife, compulsively shy, was a further hindrance to him, and her complete faith in the mystic Rasputin did nothing to enhance her reputation, insofar as her son's hemophilia (which Rasputin seemed to be able to contain) was a state secret.
Nicholas II was indecisive but he gambled by threatening Japanese geopolitical ambitions in the Far East. The Japanese victory in the 1904-1905 war came as a devastating shock to the country. An entire armada was destroyed. The country was racked with labor and peasant unrest. When father's Gapon's enormous rally--ostensibly loyal to the tsar at least personally--was met by gunfire and Cossack sallies, the country erupted in revolt. Revolutionary Councils made bids for power in about 50 cities. Peasants burned estates. Reluctantly, the tsar made peace with Japan and granted a modest but very real constitution in October. A duma was eventually elected, and power was, for the first time and despite the tsar's continuing authority, officially divided.
The tsar's tenuous grasp on power did not withstand the first World War. 16 million soldiers were lost at the front. In the bloody civil war that followed, the tsar and his family eventually lost their lives as well.
Labels: Catherine the Great, History Channel, Land of the Tsars, Peter III, Peter the Great, Pugachev, Rus
Andrey October 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Russia has incredible history, so many events, revolutions, wars.
Russia is not only country, it's a civilization with specific culture, mentality and history.
Very interesting summary of Russian history. I'll have to look up the Land of the Tsars myself.
ee cummings in 1931
Conventional Fantasies
The Cult of Tolstoy
Comedy by Chernychevsky
What is to be done?
Soviet Arts Experience
Slave Labor
Antithesis, Anti-World, Anti-Self


text:
cherchez the lobster 2
Roger Gathmann April 30, 2011
In 1763, according to Linda Hanas , John Spilsbury, a printer, began to sell an item he called the "dissected map" to children in London. Interestingly, Spilsbury had worked as an apprentice to Thomas Jeffreys, who bore the title of Geographer to the King. But though Spilsbury is generally credited as the first jigsaw puzzle maker, there are other candidates. However, as Ann Douglas Williams points out in her book on the history of the jigsaw puzzle, Marie-Jean Le Prince de Beaumont was using "wooden maps" to teach children in 1759, which gives her a priority. The name should ring a bell among LI readers – we have mentioned Le Prince de Beaumont and her connections to the proto-Enlightenment in Rouen in a previous post. That the author of Beauty and the Beast would see, in the map, a labyrinth, is an almost too beautiful intersigne of the connection between the mythic and the enlightened, the battle of the moderns versus the ancient and the discovery of the Volksmythologie. A fol
cherchez the lobster: modernist analogy
To discover the source of the philosophy of analogy in the 19th century, cherchez le homard. In 1822, Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire published his General Considerations on Vertebrae in which he announced the law of analogies – that is, he announced that living beings could be considered to have analogous organs or organic plans when such organs or plans were connected according to the same order. To show this, he took the lobster as an example. When we consider the lobster's body plan by imagining the beast horizontal to the ground, we get one sense of the order of those connections – but if we imagine them "swimming on their sides", our dissection of the lobster shows that the order of its organs are analogous to those of vertebrates. This, in turn, shows that we have a false view of the how the lobster moves – if he moves in a way that seems, from our perspective, right side up, from the perspective of the 'law of connections' he is moving on his side. "What our law of connections demands
Freedom as a form of adventure
There is an overlap in the period of what Polanyi calls the Great Transformation – the period between the seventeenth and twentieth century – between various models of the modernization process. There is the theme of the liberal historians, taken up by Habermas in the sixties, that assigns to this period the creation of the bourgeois culture of sociability, which is identified with the schismogenesis of a private and public sphere; there is the theme articulated by Foucault that assigns to it the creation of the disciplinary society. And of course there is the Marxist analysis of it as the first epoch dominated by the capitalist mode of production, with all its cultural and political effects, from the creation of new class divisions to the establishment of new spaces and times – the space of the circulation of commodities, and the times - of abstract labor, of the turnover of commodity capital, etc. – in which whole populations begin to live. There are other spheres that I would lik
confit de Hitchens
I had supplied myself with the proper material to take care of the three hours it would take for the train from Montpellier to reach Paris: an omnibus book of Maigret mysteries. A. had supplied herself with a stack of newspapers, among them the Sunday Observer. My eye was caught by the headline of the lead story in the Culture section: Amis on Hitchens. I decided, in the middle of one of Maigret's search for the murderer of a rich bourgeois in the Sixth Arrondissement, to sneak this section of the paper from A. and read the article, because the very headline gave me a feeling of ghoulish pleasure: for if, as I think is the case, Hitchens sacrificed not only his standing as a moral entrepreneur, but his art as a writer, in order to play the minstrel to the Cheney-Rumsfeld set of neo-colonialist wankers, then isn't the most appropriate of all punishments that of being lauded in the suet-y prose of his friend, a man who has puzzlingly sacrificed his talents as a satirist of the bou