alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4412 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4412

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 2016

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
                         hydroelectric project.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
numbered 12740, the Commission may, at the request of the licensee for 
the project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good 
faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that section 
and the Commission's procedures under that section, extend the time 
period during which the licensee is required to commence the 
construction of the project for up to three consecutive 2-year periods 
from the date of the expiration of the extension originally issued by 
the Commission.
    (b) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period required for 
commencement of construction of the project described in subsection (a) 
has expired prior to the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Commission may reinstate the license for the project effective as of 
the date of its expiration and the first extension authorized under

              

 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of such expiration.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 14, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 678.505 Is there a single Memorandum of Understanding for the local area, or must there be different Memoranda of Understanding between the Local Workforce Development Board and each partner? ( a ) A single “umbrella” MOU may be developed that addresses the issues relating to the local one-stop delivery system for the Local WDB, chief elected official and all partners. Alternatively, the Local WDB (with agreement of chief elected official) may enter into separate agreements between each partner or groups of partners.
( b ) Under either approach, the requirements described in § 678.500 apply. Since funds are generally appropriated annually, the Local WDB may negotiate financial agreements with each partner annually to update funding of services and operating costs of the system under the MOU.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 388.70

 388.70

 389.26

 390.00

 390.76

 391.54

 392.47

 393.24

 393.68

 394.17

 394.74

 395.24

 395.72

 396.04

 396.66

 396.95

 397.25

 397.54

 397.84

 398.16

 398.17

 398.17

 398.17

 398.13

 398.09

 398.14

 398.46

 398.78

 398.86

 398.86

 435,974

 435,974

 440,144

 445,676

 451,384

 457,270

 464,325

 470,196

 473,564

 477,324

 481,712

 485,574

 489,291

 491,776

 496,602

 498,866

 501,212

 503,483

 505,837

 508,352

 508,431

 508,431

 508,431

 508,116

 507,802

 508,195

 510,714

 513,239

 513,870

 513,870

STORAGE

+2,227

+0

+4,170

+5,532

+5,708

+5,886

+7,055

+5,871

+3,368

+3,760

+4,388

+3,862

+3,717

+2,485

+4,826

+2,264

+2,346

+2,271

+2,354

+2,515

+79

+0

+0

-315

-314

+393

+2,519

+2,525

+631

+0

CHANGE

1,281

0

2,755

3,336

3,444

3,420

3,949

3,370

1,988

2,220

2,577

2,559

2,190

1,460

2,912

1,444

1,440

1,436

1,441

1,442

0

0

0

0

180

1,445

1,446

1,418

352

0

PUMPING

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

POWER

 100

 113

 95

 95

 101

 92

 90

 110

 104

 96

 106

 97

 111

 92

 66

 70

 69

 107

 63

 97

 84

 91

 101

 107

 99

 86

 79

 88

 72

 234

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TUNNEL

-58

+113

-558

-452

-466

-361

-301

-300

-186

-228

-259

-514

-205

-115

-412

-233

-189

-184

-192

-78

+124

+91

+101

-51

-239

-1,162

-97

-57

+37

+234

OR

 34

 55

 46

 48

 61

 42

 42

 42

 45

 47

 33

 30

 38

 45

 51

 38

 63

 38

 38

 38

 15

 15

 25

 13

 20

 20

 13

 10

 18

 20

C.F.S.

 .14

 .23

 .20

 .20

 .25

 .17

 .17

 .17

 .18

 .19

 .13

 .12

 .15

 .18

 .20

 .15

 .25

 .15

 .15

 .15

 .06

 .06

 .10

 .05

 .08

 .08

 .05

 .04

 .07

 .08

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .15

 .21

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL SAN LUIS RESERVOIR February 11, 2014

DAILY OPERATIONS

NOVEMBER 2013 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. LOSS(-)

SAN LUIS

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +80,123 49,505 0 2,915 0 -6,197 1,043 4.20 .37

ACRE-FEET +80,123 98,193 0 5,782 0 -12,292 2,069

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 0

PACHECO TUNNEL 5,782 TOTAL 5,782

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2013 TO DATE = .41

 433,747

SPILL 0 .37

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

PACHECO

GAIN(+)

C.F.S.

Table 17
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF CALIFORNIA BEACH RESTAURANTS, INC., AS OF JULY 31,
1999 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR
THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         356,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    201,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               993,000
<PP&E>                                       6,392,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,242,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,881,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,888,000
<BONDS>                                      2,499,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (90,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,881,000
<SALES>                                      3,140,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,140,000
<CGS>                                        2,783,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,048,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               252,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (160,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (160,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (160,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-16-00163-CR

KELLY WAYNE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. 48066

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kelly Wayne Williams has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion was signed 

by both Williams and his appellate counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2(a), we grant the 

motion. See id.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: November 7, 2016

Date Decided: November 8, 2016

Do Not Publish
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 397.92

 398.83

 399.52

 400.51

 401.37

 401.89

 402.37

 402.90

 403.28

 403.73

 404.27

 405.26

 405.33

 405.81

 406.62

 407.37

 408.10

 408.62

 409.97

 410.12

 410.62

 411.28

 411.96

 412.83

 413.66

 414.81

 415.38

 416.36

 417.03

 417.68

 506,465

 513,633

 519,094

 526,965

 533,839

 538,011

 541,873

 546,149

 549,223

 552,871

 557,261

 565,343

 565,916

 569,851

 576,516

 582,712

 588,767

 593,094

 604,384

 605,643

 609,848

 615,415

 621,170

 628,563

 635,647

 645,510

 650,420

 658,894

 664,711

 670,373

STORAGE

+8,068

+7,168

+5,461

+7,871

+6,874

+4,172

+3,862

+4,276

+3,074

+3,648

+4,390

+8,082

+573

+3,935

+6,665

+6,196

+6,055

+4,327

+11,290

+1,259

+4,205

+5,567

+5,755

+7,393

+7,084

+9,863

+4,910

+8,474

+5,817

+5,662

CHANGE

4,791

4,288

3,415

4,614

4,013

2,688

2,608

2,755

1,996

2,455

2,650

4,862

718

2,447

4,000

3,701

3,675

2,822

6,531

933

2,753

3,375

3,556

4,342

4,155

5,898

3,194

4,194

3,250

3,364

PUMPING

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 87

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

POWER

 271

 229

 260

 261

 243

 261

 278

 272

 271

 274

 273

 248

 264

 251

 265

 270

 249

 248

 212

 153

 227

 270

 220

 229

 224

 203

 211

 203

 160

 209

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TUNNEL

-452

-446

-402

-385

-305

-323

-295

-327

-175

-342

-163

-540

-165

-212

-375

-308

-373

-393

-628

-146

-405

-298

-435

-386

-359

-723

-508

+281

-157

-300

OR

 135

 136

 136

 155

 117

 143

 164

 149

 141

 166

 155

 140

 156

 133

 128

 128

 135

 146

 117

 0

 74

 96

 93

 97

 86

 109

 126

 134

 101

 99

C.F.S.

 .53

 .53

 .53

 .60

 .45

 .55

 .63

 .57

 .54

 .63

 .59

 .53

 .59

 .50

 .48

 .48

 .50

 .54

 .43

 .00

 .27

 .35

 .34

 .35

 .31

 .39

 .45

 .48

 .36

 .35

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .07

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL SAN LUIS RESERVOIR October 22, 2004

DAILY OPERATIONS

SEPTEMBER 2004 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. LOSS(-)

SAN LUIS

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +171,976 104,043 87 7,209 0 -10,045 3,695 13.85 .07

ACRE-FEET +171,976 206,369 173 14,299 0 -19,924 7,329

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 173

PACHECO TUNNEL 14,299 TOTAL 14,472

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2004 TO DATE = .07

 498,397

SPILL 0 .07

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

PACHECO

GAIN(+)

C.F.S.

Table 17
### §1186. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–508, §6, Sept. 21, 1968, 82 Stat. 862, which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this subchapter, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### SUBCHAPTER I—CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 E0 05 4 . HUCKABAY v . HUCKABAY.

Up o n co n s id erat i o n o f A p p el l an t Bri an Hu ck ab ay ’ s “ Em erg en cy M o t i o n fo r
Ex t en s io n of Ti m e fo r Fi l i n g Ap p l i cat i o n fo r Di s cret i o n ary Ap p eal ,” i t i s o rd ered t h at

t h e s am e i s h ereb y G R A N T E D

. Ap p el l an t s h al l h av e u n t i l J u l y 2 4
, 2 01 9 t o fi l e an
ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## June 04, 2019

06/04/2019
(January 26, 1948.)

#### Michael Golodetz et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of M. Golodetz & Co., Respondents, v. Juan J. March, S. de R. L., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
§ 640.8 Enforcement of the standard. ( a ) *Action by the Department of Labor.* When a State agency fails, for an extended period, to meet the standard set forth in § 640.4 or the criteria specified in § 640.5, or fails to show satisfactory improvement after having submitted a benefit payment performance plan of action, the Department of Labor shall pursue any of the following remedial steps that it deems necessary before considering application of the provisions of § 640.2: ( 1 ) Initiate informal discussion with State agency officials pursuant to § 601.5(b) of this chapter.
( 2 ) Conduct an evaluation of the State's benefit payment processes and analyze the reasons for the State's failure to meet the standard.
( 3 ) Recommend specific actions for the State to take to improve its benefit payment performance.
( 4 ) Request the State to submit a plan for complying with the standard by a prescribed date.
( 5 ) Initiate special reporting requirements for a specified period of time.
( 6 ) Consult with the Governor of the State regarding the consequences of the State's noncompliance with the standard.
( 7 ) Propose to the Governor of the State and on an agreed upon basis arrange for the use of expert Federal staff to furnish technical assistance to the State agency with respect to its payment operations.
( b ) *Action by the Assistant Secretary.* If, after all remedial steps have been exhausted, a State fails to take appropriate action, or otherwise fails to meet the standard specified in § 640.4, the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training shall, after taking all factors into consideration, recommend to the Secretary of Labor that appropriate notice be sent to the State agency and that an opportunity for a hearing be extended in accordance with section 303(b) of the Social Security Act.
IN THE MATTER OF THE * IN THE

APPLICATION TO RESIGN FROM

FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW * COURT OF APPEALS

OF JONATHAN DAVID SUSS

* OF MARYLAND

* Misc. Docket AG No. 90

* September Term, 20 20

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Application to Resign from the Practice of Law of

Jonathan David Suss and the response of Bar Counsel

, filed in the above

- captioned case

,

it is this 15th day of June , 202 1

ORDERED , by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the resignation of

Jonathan David Suss from the Bar of the State of Maryland is hereby accepted; and it is

further

ORDERED , that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name Jonathan David

Suss from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of the

Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in

this State.

/ s/ Mary Ellen Barbera

Chief Judge
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6462** 

CHAUNCEY A. WILLIAMS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. GENE JOHNSON, Director of VA D.O.C. , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T. S. Ellis , III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 01290

- TSE

- TCB )

Submitted : July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Chauncey A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Lara Kate Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in t his circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Chauncey A. Williams appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the dis trict

court. Williams v. Johnson , No. 1:10

- cv - 01290

- TSE

- TCB (E.D. Va.
filed Feb. 29, 2012 ; entered Mar. 1, 2012 ) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argume nt would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Jaspal Singh CHAHAL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73289.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

*827Inna Lipkin, Esq., Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Lori Jonas, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jaspal Singh Chahal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Chahal failed to file a timely asylum application and that no changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of his application. *See Ramadan v. Gonzales,*427 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2005).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review the denial of withholding of review and CAT protection. We review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence, *Hasan v. Ashcroft,*380 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.2004), and deny the petition for review on these claims.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal. The record contained insufficient evidence to compel the conclusion that the police who detained and beat Chahal were motivated by his religion or a political opinion that they imputed to him. *See Dinu v. Ashcroft,*372 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir.2004).

Further, Chahal failed to show it was more likely than not that he would be tortured should he return to India, and thus he is not eligible for CAT relief. *See Hasan,*380 F.3d at 1122-23.

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2004).

DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §9221c. Prohibition on transactions with certain sanctioned persons by persons owned or controlled by United States financial institutions

#### (a) In general

Not later than 180 days after December 20, 2019, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall prohibit an entity owned or controlled by a United States financial institution and established or maintained outside the United States from knowingly engaging in any transaction described in subsection (b) directly or indirectly with the Government of North Korea or any person designated for the imposition of sanctions with respect to North Korea under—

(1) subsection (a), (b), or (g) of section 9214 of this title;

(2) an applicable Executive order; or

(3) an applicable United Nations Security Council resolution.

#### (b) Transactions described

A transaction described in this subsection is a transaction that would be prohibited by an order or regulation issued pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) if the transaction were engaged in in the United States or by a United States person.

#### (c) Civil penalties

The civil penalty provided for in section 206(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705(b)) shall apply to a United States financial institution to the same extent that such penalty applies to a person that commits an unlawful act described in section 206(a) of that Act if an entity owned or controlled by the United States financial institution and established or maintained outside the United States violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation of any order or regulation issued to implement subsection (a).

#### (d) United States financial institution defined

In this section, the term "United States financial institution" has the meaning given the term "U.S. financial institution" in section 510.328 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling).

(Pub. L. 114–122, title II, §201C, as added Pub. L. 116–92, div. F, title LXXI, §7121(a), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2246.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is title II of Pub. L. 95–223, Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1626, which is classified generally to chapter 35 (§1701 et seq.) of Title 50, War and National Defense. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1701 of Title 50 and Tables.
§ 725.703 How is treatment authorized? ( a ) Upon notification to a miner of such miner's entitlement to benefits, OWCP must provide the miner with a list of authorized treating physicians and medical facilities in the area of the miner's residence. The miner may select a physician from this list or may select another physician with approval of OWCP. Where emergency services are necessary and appropriate, authorization by OWCP is not required.
( b ) OWCP may, on its own initiative, or at the request of a responsible operator, order a change of physicians or facilities, but only where it has been determined that the change is desirable or necessary in the best interest of the miner. The miner may change physicians or facilities subject to the approval of OWCP.
( c ) If adequate treatment cannot be obtained in the area of the claimant's residence, OWCP may authorize the use of physicians or medical facilities outside such area as well as reimbursement for travel expenses and overnight accommodations.