alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.54 Nonionizing radiation. ( a ) Only qualified and trained employees shall be assigned to install, adjust, and operate laser equipment.
( b ) Proof of qualification of the laser equipment operator shall be available and in possession of the operator at all times.
( c ) Employees, when working in areas in which a potential exposure to direct or reflected laser light greater than 0.005 watts (5 milliwatts) exists, shall be provided with antilaser eye protection devices as specified in subpart E of this part.
( d ) Areas in which lasers are used shall be posted with standard laser warning placards.
( e ) Beam shutters or caps shall be utilized, or the laser turned off, when laser transmission is not actually required. When the laser is left unattended for a substantial period of time, such as during lunch hour, overnight, or at change of shifts, the laser shall be turned off.
( f ) Only mechanical or electronic means shall be used as a detector for guiding the internal alignment of the laser.
( g ) The laser beam shall not be directed at employees.
( h ) When it is raining or snowing, or when there is dust or fog in the air, the operation of laser systems shall be prohibited where practicable; in any event, employees shall be kept out of range of the area of source and target during such weather conditions.
( i ) Laser equipment shall bear a label to indicate maximum output.
( j ) Employees shall not be exposed to light intensities above: ( 1 ) Direct staring: 1 micro-watt per square centimeter;
( 2 ) Incidental observing: 1 milliwatt per square centimeter;
( 3 ) Diffused reflected light: 21 ⁄ 2 watts per square centimeter.
( k ) Laser unit in operation should be set up above the heads of the employees, when possible.
( l ) Employees shall not be exposed to microwave power densities in excess of 10 milliwatts per square centimeter.
#### § 1915.91 Accident prevention signs and tags.

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to the requirements set forth at 29 CFR 1910.145 of this chapter.
#### § 2520.101-1 Duty of reporting and disclosure.

The procedures for implementing the plan administrator's duty of reporting to the Secretary of Labor and disclosing information to participants and beneficiaries are located in subparts D, E and F of this part.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1210-0016)

[41 FR 16962, Apr. 23, 1976, as amended at 46 FR 62845, Dec. 29, 1981]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KERIT LAMAR JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 70720

Agency No. A205

- 311

- 853

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2019 **

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS , Circuit Judges.

Kerit Lamar Johnson, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immig ration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal

proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 70720

§ 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reope n for an abuse of discretion.

Arredondo v

. Lynch

, 824 F

. 3d 801

, 805 ( 9th Cir

. 2016 ). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion to

reopen as untimely where it was filed seven months after the IJ’s order of removal

and Johnson failed to show that he did not fail to appear at his final removal

hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (in absentia removal order “ may be

rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed with in 180 days after the date of the

order of removal, if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of

exceptional circumstances ”) ; see also Perez v. Mukasey , 516 F.3d 770, 774 (9th

Cir. 2008) ( “ a petitioner who arrives late for his immigr ation hearing, but while the

IJ is still in the courtroom, has not failed to appear for that hearing ” )

.

To the extent Johnson contends his motion to reopen was timely filed

because he sent a request for a new hearing to the BIA in April 2016, w e lack

jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v. Holder , 628 F.3d

1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not

raised before the agency)

.

We do not consider the extra

- record evidence that Johnson submitted for the

first time with his opening brief. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) ; Dent v. Holder

,

627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out

- of

- record3 17

- 70720

evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part ; DISMISSED in part

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17146.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

June 14, 1967.

William F. Koney, Pros. Atty., Detroit, Mich. (Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Aloysius J. Suchy, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for Wayne County.

Joseph Maisano, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Detroit, Mich. (Robert Reese, Corp_ Counsel, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for City of Detroit, amicus curiae.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., T. Carl Holbrook, William D. Dexter, Asst. Attys. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Mich., on brief as amicus, curiae for State of Michigan.

Philip I. Brennan, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Richard C.. Pugh, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A.. Jackson, Joseph Kovner, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief; Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., of counsel), for appellee..

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and'. O’SULLIVAN and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The question on appeal is whether a local tax lien, which is a general lien upon the taxpayer’s personal property, is superior to the priority of the United States Government under Section 3466-of the Revised Statutes, where the local taxing authority has taken no action to attach its general lien to specific property of the taxpayer before the taxpayer becomes insolvent and his assets subject to a distribution for the benefit of his creditors.

*672The District Court granted the motion of the United States for summary judgment. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s opinion of October 7, 1965, 247 F.Supp. 84, and also the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Spokane County v. United States, 279 U.S. 80, 49 S.Ct. 321, 73 L.Ed. 621; People of State of New York v. Maclay, 288 U.S. 290, 53 S.Ct. 323, 77 L.Ed. 754; United States v. State of Texas, 314 U.S. 480, 62 S.Ct. 350, 86 L.Ed. 356; United States v. Waddill, Holland & Flinn, 323 U.S. 353, 65 S.Ct. 304, 89 L.Ed. 294; People of State of Illinois ex rel. Gordon v. Campbell, 329 U.S. 362, 67 S.Ct. 340, 91 L.Ed. 348; United States v. Gilbert Associates, 345 U.S. 361, 73 S.Ct. 701, 97 L.Ed. 1071; United States v. City of New Britain, 347 U.S. 81, 74 S.Ct. 367, 98 L.Ed. 520; United States v. State of Vermont, 377 U.S. 351, 84 S.Ct. 1267, 12 L.Ed.2d 370; United States v. Equitable Life, 384 U.S. 323, 86 S.Ct. 1561, 16 L.Ed.2d 593.

Affirmed.
§ 1955.5 Petitions for withdrawal of approval. ( a ) At any time following the initial approval of a State plan under section 18(c) of the Act, any interested person may petition the Assistant Secretary in writing to initiate proceedings for withdrawal of approval of the plan under section 18(f) of the Act and this part. The petition shall contain a statement of the grounds for initiating a withdrawal proceeding, including facts to support the petition.
( b ) ( 1 ) The Assistant Secretary may request the petitioner for additional facts and may take such other actions as are considered appropriate such as: ( i ) Publishing the petition for public comment;
( ii ) Holding informal discussion on the issues raised by the petition with the State and other persons affected; or
( iii ) Holding an informal hearing in accordance with § 1902.13 of this chapter.
( 2 ) Any such petition shall be considered and acted upon within a reasonable time. Prompt notice shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of any petition and the notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for the denial. A denial of a petition does not preclude future action on those issues or any other issues raised regarding a State plan.
3850 Three Mile Lane • McMinnville, Oregon 97128 • USA

Phone (503) 472

‐ 0011 • Fax (503) 434

‐ 5913 • SITA: HDQMCEZ

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

Docket No. FAA-2012-1240

November 14, 2012

Attachment

SUMMARY OF ATA PETITION

Evergreen International Airlines, as a prior Airlines for America member and similarly situated Part

121 operator, petitions for an Exemption from 14 CFR 121.652(a) and (c). This exemption permits a

pilot in command under Part 121 to conduct an instrument approach procedure to the weather

minima prescribed by this exemption during the first 100 hours of service as a pilot in command, in

the type of airplane he or she is operating, using an alternative means approved by the

Administrator of satisfying 14 CFR §121.652(a) and (c), subject to certain conditions and limitations.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, David F. Hoffmeister, Chief Financial Officer of Invitrogen Corporation (the
Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                   |  |  |  |  |  |                          |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Dated: May 4, 2006 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ David F. Hoffmeister
|                   |  |  |  |  |  |                          |  | David F. Hoffmeister   
|                   |  |  |  |  |  |                          |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Invitrogen and will be retained by Invitrogen and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12445]



[[Page 31577]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, 
President's Advisory Commission; Notice of Meeting; Correction

    In Federal Register Document 00-11449 appearing on page 26219 in 
the issue for Friday, May 5, 2000, the following corrections have been 
made to the Notice of Meeting for the President's Advisory Commission. 
The room number for the meeting on May 17, 2000 has been changed from 
Room 800 of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building to the Stonehenge Room of 
the Hubert H. Humphrey Building. A time change has taken place for the 
meeting on May 19, 2000. The meeting will take place from 9:00 a.m.-
1:00 p.m. Those are the only changes to be noted. All other information 
is correct as it appears.
    An additional meeting has been scheduled and will take place on 
Thursday, May 18, 2000. This meeting will be open to the public. The 
meeting will be held on May 18, 2000 from 2:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. in Room 
800 of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building located at 200 Independence 
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201.
    Requests to address the Commission should be made in writing and 
should include the name, address, telephone number and business or 
professional affiliation of the interested party. Individuals or groups 
addressing similar issues are encouraged to combine comments and 
present through a single representative. The allocation of time for 
remarks may be adjusted to accommodate the level of expressed interest. 
Written requests should be faxed to (301) 443-0259. Anyone who has 
interest in attending any portion of the meetings or who requires 
additional information about the Commission should contact: Mr. Tyson 
Nakashima, Office of the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and 
Pacific Islanders, Parklawn Building, Room 10-42, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone (301) 443-2492. Anyone who requires 
special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other 
reasonable accommodations, should contact Mr. Nakashima no later than 
Tuesday, May 16, 2000.

    Dated: May 11, 2000.
Jane M. Harrison,
Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. 00-12445 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
#### § 2200.102 Withdrawal.

A party may withdraw its notice of contest, citation, notification of proposed penalty, or petition for modification of abatement period at any stage of a proceeding. The notice of withdrawal shall be served in accordance with § 2200.7(c) upon all parties and authorized employee representatives that are eligible to elect, but have not elected, party status. It shall also be posted in the manner prescribed in § 2200.7(g) for the benefit of any affected employees not represented by an authorized employee representative who are eligible to elect, but have not elected, party status. Proof of service shall accompany the notice of withdrawal in accordance with § 2200.7(d).
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-11-00715- CV Carowest Land, L td., Appellan t

v. Y.C. P artner s, Ltd. d /b/a Yan tis Com pany; City of New B raunf

els, Texas, and Michael Morr ison, Ap pellees
F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 433 RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. C2010 -15 19D, H ONO RAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSAY , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Carowe st L and, Ltd. has filed an unopposed motion reques t i n g that this appea l be dismiss ed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a) (1). We g rant the motion and dismiss the appea l.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Henson a nd Goodwin Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: May

1, 2012
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00205-CR

CHRISTOPHER JASON HALL,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 220th District Court

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06-11-14071 BCCR

ORDER

The State’s brief in this appeal was originally due on March 30, 2015. The State 

has requested and been granted two extensions of time to file its brief. It has now filed 

a third motion for extension of time to file its brief.

The State’s motion is denied. Its brief is ORDERED to be filed no later than 5:00 

p.m. on August 20, 2015.

PER CURIAM
Hall v. State Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed July 30, 2015
----

----

I Informacija

Komisija

----

BENDRASIS ŽEMĖS ŪKIO AUGALŲ RŪŠIŲ VEISLIŲ KATALOGAS

22-ojo pilno leidimo vienuoliktasis papildymas

(2004/C 182 A/01)

Paaiškinimai

Žemės ūkio augalų rūšių sąrašas

I.

Runkeliai

II.

Pašariniai augalai

III.

Aliejiniai ir pluoštiniai augalai

IV.

Javai

V.

Bulvės

LEGENDA

I

1.BETA VULGARIS L.

2.BETA VULGARIS L.

II

13.FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA SCHREBER

14.FESTUCA OVINA L.

15.FESTUCA PRATENSIS HUDSON

16.FESTUCA RUBRA L.

17.LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM LAM.

18.LOLIUM PERENNE L.

19.LOLIUM × BOUCHEANUM KUNTH

22.PHLEUM PRATENSE L.

26.POA PRATENSIS L.

27.POA TRIVIALIS L.

30.LOTUS CORNICULATUS L.

31.LUPINUS ALBUS L.

32.LUPINUS ANGUSTIFOLIUS L.

35.MEDICAGO SATIVA L.

38.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

39.TRIFOLIUM ALEXANDRINUM L.

40.TRIFOLIUM HYBRIDUM L.

41.TRIFOLIUM INCARNATUM L.

42.TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE L.

44.TRIFOLIUM RESUPINATUM L.

46.VICIA FABA L. (PARTIM)

48.VICIA SATIVA L.

53.RAPHANUS SATIVUS L. VAR. OLEIFORMIS PERS.

III

55.BRASSICA RAPA L. VAR. SILVESTRIS (LAM.) BRIGGS

57.BRASSICA NAPUS L. (PARTIM)

59.CANNABIS SATIVA L.

62.GOSSYPIUM SPP.

63.HELIANTHUS ANNUUS L.

64.LINUM USITATISSIMUM L.

66.SINAPIS ALBA L.

67.GLYCINE MAX (L.) MERRILL

IV

68.AVENA SATIVA L.

69.HORDEUM VULGARE L.

72.SECALE CEREALE L.

73.SORGHUM BICOLOR (L.) MOENCH

75.SORGHUM BICOLOR (L.) MOENCH × SORGHUM SUDANENSE (PIPER) STAPF.

76.× TRITICOSECALE WITTM.

77.TRITICUM AESTIVUM L. EMEND. FIORI ET PAOL.

78.TRITICUM DURUM DESF.

80.ZEA MAYS L.

V

81.SOLANUM TUBEROSUM L.

----

(1)OL C 91 A, 2003 4 16. Paskutiniai pakeitimai buvo atlikti 10-ajame papildyme (OL C 161 A, 2004 6 18, p. 1).

(2)OL L 193, 2002 7 20, p. 1.

----

----

BENDRASIS DARŽOVIŲ RŪŠIŲ VEISLIŲ KATALOGAS

22-ojo pilno leidimo penktasis papildymas

(2004/C 182 A/02)

Paaiškinimai

Daržovių rūšių sąrašas

LEGENDA

2.ALLIUM CEPA L.

4.ALLIUM PORRUM L.

8.ASPARAGUS OFFICINALIS L.

10.BETA VULGARIS L. VAR. CONDITIVA ALEF.

12.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. BOTRYTIS (L.) ALEF. VAR. BOTRYTIS L.

15.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. CAPITATA (L.) ALEF. VAR. SABAUDA L.

16.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. CAPITATA (L.) ALEF. VAR. ALBA DC.

17.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. CAPITATA (L.) ALEF. VAR. RUBRA DC.

21.CAPSICUM ANNUUM L.

22.CICHORIUM ENDIVIA L.

24.CICHORIUM INTYBUS L. (PARTIM)

25.CITRULLUS LANATUS (THUNB.) MATSUM. ET NAKAI

26.CUCUMIS MELO L.

27.CUCUMIS SATIVUS L.

29.CUCURBITA PEPO L.

32.DAUCUS CAROTA L.

34.LACTUCA SATIVA L.

35.LYCOPERSICON LYCOPERSICUM (L.) KARSTEN EX FARW.

38.PHASEOLUS VULGARIS L.

39.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

40.RAPHANUS SATIVUS L.

43.SOLANUM MELONGENA L.

44.SPINACIA OLERACEA L.

45.VALERIANELLA LOCUSTA (L.) LATERR.

----

(1)OL C 308 A, 2003 12 18. Paskutiniai katalogo pakeitimai buvo atlikti 4-ajame papildyme (OL C 161 A, 2004 6 18, p. 37).

(2)OL L 193, 2002 7 20, p. 33.

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2399** 

MAJED SUBH , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. Army Records Managements & Declassification Agency, DA Freedom of Info and Privacy Office , D efendant

– Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00433

- LMB

- TRJ )

Submitted : March 15, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011

Before MOTZ an d WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Majed Subh, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin J. Mikolashek, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Majed Subh appeals the district court ’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for th e reasons s tated by the district court. See Subh v. Department of the Army , No. 1:10

- cv - 00433

- LMB

- TRJ (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the co urt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### NEFF LUMBER CO v FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ST. CLAIRESVILLE, Admr NEFF LUMBER CO v CHERVENKO NEFF LUMBER CO v DYKEN

Ohio Supreme Court

Nos 21918-19-20.

Decided April 23, 1930

Kinkade, Robinson, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.
#### § 2.41 Severability.

Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any provision(s) of this subpart to be invalid, such action will not affect any other provision of this subpart.

[85 FR 82141, Dec. 17, 2020]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32097-32098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12808]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[Docket No.: FEMA-REP-1-RI-1]


Rhode Island Ingestion Pathway Plan for Millstone Nuclear Power 
Plant and Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice of approval of the State of Rhode Island 
Ingestion Pathway Plan in support of the overall emergency preparedness 
for the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant and Pilgrim Nuclear Power 
Station.

DATES: This certification and approval are effective as of April 14, 
2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regional Director, FEMA Region I, 442 
J.W. McCormack POCH Boston, and Massachusetts 02109. Please refer to 
Docket No. FEMA-REP-1-RI-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) Rule 44 CFR, Part 350, the State of Rhode 
Island submitted its ingestion pathway plan in support of the overall 
emergency preparedness for the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant and 
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. The plan was submitted to the Regional 
Director of FEMA Region I for review and approval on April 3, 1996. The 
Regional Director forwarded a recommendation for formal approval of the 
Rhode Island Plan to FEMA Headquarters for review and approval on 
November 29, 1999, in accordance with Section 350.11. This evaluation 
was based on a review of the plan; the joint exercise conducted on 
August 10-11, 1999, in accordance with section 350.9 for the exercise 
for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station; and, a report of the public meeting 
held on March 20, 2000, to discuss the portion of the State of Rhode 
Island's plan and the Millstone

[[Page 32098]]

Nuclear Power Plant plan for Connecticut Communities in accordance with 
section 350.10. Based on an overall evaluation, I find and determine 
that the State of Rhode Island Ingestion Pathway plans can be 
implemented and are adequate to protect the health and safety of the 
public living in the Rhode Island portion of the ingestion pathway of 
Millstone Nuclear Power Plant and Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station by 
providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can 
be taken in the event of an accident at either one of these sites. FEMA 
will continue to review the status of the ingestion pathway plan in 
accordance with Sections 350.5 and 350.9.

    Dated: May 16, 2000.
Kay C. Goss,
Associate Director for Preparedness, Training, and Exercises.
[FR Doc. 00-12808 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-06-P