alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2653.9 Regional selections. ( a ) Applications by a regional corporation for selection of land within its boundaries under section 14(h)(8) of the Act shall be filed with the proper office of the Bureau of Land Management in accordance with § 2650.2(a). Selections made under section 14(h)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act will take priority over selections made pursuant to section 14(h)(8). Lands available for section 14(h)(8) selections are those lands originally withdrawn under section 11(a)(1), (3), or 16(a) of the Act and not conveyed pursuant to selections made under sections 12(a), (b), or (c), 16(b) or 19 of the Act.
( b ) A regional corporation may select a total area in excess of its entitlement to ensure that it will obtain its entitlement in the event of any conflicts. Any acreage in excess of its entitlement shall be identified as alternate selections and shall be numerically ordered on a section by section basis to indicate selection preference.
( c ) Selections need not be contiguous but must be made along section lines in reasonably compact tracts of at least 5,760 acres, not including any unavailable land contained therein. The exterior boundaries of such tracts shall be in linear segments of not less than two miles in length, except where adjoining unavailable lands or where shorter segments are necessary to follow section lines where township lines are offset along standard parallels caused by the convergence of the meridians. However, selected tracts may contain less than 5,760 acres where there is good cause shown for such selection, taking into consideration good land management planning and principles for the potentially remaining public lands, and which would not leave unduly fragmented tracts of such public lands. Each tract selected shall not be considered to be reasonably compact if ( 1 ) it excludes other lands for selection within its exterior boundaries, or
( 2 ) an isolated tract of public land of less than 1,280 acres remains after selection of the total entitlement. Regional corporations shall not be precluded from selecting less than 5,760 acres where the entire tract available for selection constitutes less than 5,760 acres. Selection shall conform as nearly as practicable to the United States land survey system.
( d ) Notice of the filing of such selections, including the date by which any protest of the selection should be filed, shall be published once in the Federal Register and one or more newspapers of general circulation in Alaska once a week for three consecutive weeks by the Bureau of Land Management. Any protest to the application should be filed in the Bureau of Land Management office in which such selections were filed within the time specified in the notice.
( e ) Appeals from decisions made by the Bureau of Land Management with respect to such selections shall be made to the Board of Land Appeals in accordance with 43 CFR part 4, subpart E.
[41 FR 14740, Apr. 7, 1976, as amended at 41 FR 49487, Nov. 9, 1976]
#### § 725.211 Time of determination of relationship and dependency of spouse or child for purposes of augmentation of benefits.

With respect to the spouse or child of a miner entitled to benefits, and with respect to the child of a surviving spouse entitled to benefits, the determination as to whether an individual purporting to be a spouse or child is related to or dependent upon such miner or surviving spouse shall be based on the facts and circumstances present in each case, at the appropriate time.

Conditions and Duration of Entitlement: Miner's Survivors
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

STEELHEAD REPORT

October 2002

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG.

Steelhead Estimated Salvage Steelhead Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) Pumping

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily Total Daily Total

Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag In CFS In Acre Feet

DATE Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2485 4327 6812 4929 8583 13512

2-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2285 4323 6608 4532 8574 13106

3-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1836 4313 6149 3642 8554 12196

4-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1974 4289 6264 3916 8508 12424

5-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1359 4313 5671 2695 8554 11249

6-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1249 4298 5547 2478 8525 11003

7-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 992 4275 5267 1968 8480 10448

8-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 867 4270 5137 1720 8470 10190

9-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 921 4432 5353 1827 8791 10618

10-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 921 4351 5271 1826 8630 10456

11-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 916 4225 5141 1817 8380 10197

12-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 837 4300 5138 1661 8530 10191

13-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1111 4254 5365 2204 8438 10642

14-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 4301 4802 992 8532 9524

15-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 905 4292 5197 1795 8513 10308

16-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 908 4200 5108 1801 8330 10131

17-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 915 4189 5104 1815 8309 10124

18-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1172 4341 5513 2325 8611 10936

19-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1060 4278 5338 2102 8486 10588

20-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1050 4246 5296 2083 8421 10504

21-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1581 4293 5874 3135 8516 11651

22-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2251 3770 6020 4464 7477 11941

23-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1952 4494 6446 3872 8914 12786

24-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 4291 6309 4002 8511 12513

25-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1764 4286 6050 3498 8502 12000

26-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1775 4301 6076 3520 8531 12051

27-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2411 4511 6922 4782 8948 13730

28-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2834 4217 7051 5621 8364 13985

29-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4465 2210 6675 8856 4383 13239

30-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4147 2203 6350 8225 4370 12595

31-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4117 2098 6215 8167 4161 12328

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53577 126492 180069 106270 250896 357166

Banks Tracy Combined Banks Tracy Combined
i)PpTOFTMPOBI/ ^ i : U l

OST-2010-004 6 Secretary o f

th e DO T Dear Sir : I f thi s chang e goe s throug han dw e start havin g massiv e difficultie s wil l yo u b e th e first

on e her e t o answe r

wh y th e voter s didn' t

ge t t o choos e whic h tim e zon e the y wanted ? Le t u s stay i nmountai ntim e unti l th e voter s decid e different . Merce r County Residen t
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                     320,128,847
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              744,211,562
<ALLOWANCES>                                31,636,381
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,172,780,935
<PP&E>                                   3,126,904,989
<DEPRECIATION>                             531,652,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          17,522,629,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      684,820,959
<BONDS>                                  2,176,233,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    33,890,443
<OTHER-SE>                              10,106,746,056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            17,522,629,909
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           782,539,692
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              519,961,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (397,806)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          55,549,354
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (37,205,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,132,676
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (42,337,776)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (39,401,608)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LAWRENCE LEWIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-233

[December 14, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Laura S. Johnson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15CF007136AMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
MEMORANDUM

Subject: Summary of Stakeholder Meetings

From: Martha Keating

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699

Date: January 29, 2015

On January 29, 2015, Karen Wesson of the Health and Environmental Impacts Division, 

Ambient Standards Group, presented an overview, by teleconference, of the Agency’s November 

25, 2015, proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone to the 

Central States Air Resource Agencies (CenSARA).

The presentation used in the teleconference is available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/2014decwebinar.pdf

The following is a list of attendees on the teleconference.

CenSARA Region Advance Program Organizations

January 29, 2015 Conference Call

Org Contact

Organization

1. Louisiana

2. Wes Wyche, Env. Services Mgr. City of Shreveport

3. Leo Marretta South Central Planning & Development 

Commission

4. Missouri and Kansas

5. Ashley Jurgensmeyer Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources 

6. Kathleen Waters, Environmental Scientist Kansas Dept. of Health and Env.

7. David Grimes, Dep. Dir. Southeast Missouri Regional Planning 

Commission

8.

Shawn Maloney, Interim Environmental 

Health Manager City of Wichita, Kansas

9. Laura Quick City of Wichita, Kansas

10. Tonya Bronleewe City of Wichita, Kansas
11. Nebraska and Iowa

12. Matthew Johnson Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources

13. Dan May, Omaha Air Quality Control Omaha Metro Area

14. Oklahoma

15. Scott Thomas ODEQ

16. Nancy Marshment ODEQ

17. Texas

18. Shana Norton Capital Area MPO

19. Fred Blood Capital Area Council of Governments 

(CAPCOG)

20. Pharr Andrews/Cari Buetow City of Austin

21. Adele Noel Travis County, Trans. & Nat. Res. Dept.

22. Jim Mathews Northeast East Clean Air Coalition

23. Others

24. Karen Wesson EPA OAQPS

25. Theresa Pella CenSARA
#### § 2569.301 How will the BLM let me know if I am an Eligible Individual?

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in consultation with the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), has identified individuals whom it believes to be Eligible Individuals. If the BLM identifies you as a presumed Eligible Individual, it will inform you by letter at your last address of record with the BIA or the VA. Even if you are identified as presumptively eligible, you still must certify in the application that you do meet the criteria of the Dingell Act.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 468 

To amend the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act to increase knowledge 

concerning, and improve services for, runaway and homeless youth who 

are victims of trafficking. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2015 

Mr. HECK of Nevada (for himself, Mr. KLINE, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, and 

Mr. WALBERG) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act to increase 

knowledge concerning, and improve services for, runaway 

and homeless youth who are victims of trafficking. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Enhancing Services 

5 for Runaway and Homeless Victims of Youth Trafficking 

6 Act of 2015’’. 

7 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

8 The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 5701 et seq.) is amended— 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 468 IH

1 (1) in section 343(b)(5)— 

2 (A) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ‘‘, se3 vere forms of trafficking in persons (as defined 

4 in section 103(9) of the Trafficking Victims 

5 Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9))), 

6 and sex trafficking (as defined in section 

7 103(10) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 7102(10)))’’ 

8 before the semicolon at the end; 

9 (B) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ‘‘, 

10 severe forms of trafficking in persons (as de11 fined in section 103(9) of the Trafficking Vic12 tims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 

13 7102(9))), and sex trafficking (as defined in 

14 section 103(10) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 

15 7102(10)))’’ after ‘‘assault’’; and 

16 (C) in subparagraph (C) by inserting ‘‘, in17 cluding such youth who are victims of traf18 ficking (as defined in section 103(15) of the 

19 Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 

20 U.S.C. 7102(15)))’’ before the semicolon at the 

21 end; and 

22 (2) in section 351(a) by striking ‘‘or sexual ex23 ploitation’’ and inserting ‘‘sexual exploitation, severe 

24 forms of trafficking in persons (as defined in section 

25 103(9) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 468 IH

1 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9))), or sex trafficking (as 

2 defined in section 103(10) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 

3 7102(10)))’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 HIGH

 186

 182

 179

 181

 187

 190

 198

 198

 201

 205

 206

 204

 201

 204

 200

 201

 209

 209

 204

 207

 207

 207

 208

 205

 0

 0

 0

 180

 182

 177

 173

 173

 174

 176

 180

 184

 189

 194

 193

 194

 195

 195

 195

 197

 196

 193

 199

 198

 197

 198

 198

 199

 199

 196

 0

 0

 0

 177

 173

 170

 178

 177

 177

 178

 183

 187

 191

 196

 196

 197

 198

 199

 198

 200

 198

 196

 202

 203

 201

 201

 202

 202

 203

 202

 0

 0

 0

 179

 177

 173

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 2, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Routing Code PJ 11.4

Washington, DC 20426

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use FERC EIS 

No. 0249D Draft Environmental Impact Statement Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects

Docket Nos. 

CP13-499-000 

CP13-502-000 

PF12-9-000 

February 2014 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

FERC EIS 0249D

Cooperating Agencies

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Washington, DC  20426

Constitution Pipeline and

Wright Interconnect Projects

February 2014

Docket Nos.:

CP13‐499‐000; CP13‐502‐000; PF12‐9‐000
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harry Dukatt, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Ho opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.; Glennon and Cohn, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the complaint on the ground that the guilt of the defendant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
#### Barbara SEIDEN Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-1852.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 22, 2006.

Paul A. Wright, Oakland, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

William L. Woodard, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Detroit, MI, for Defendani>-Appellee.

Before ROGERS and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; FORESTER, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Karl S. Forester, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

FORESTER, District Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Barbara Seiden (“Seiden”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims for failure to properly and timely exhaust her administrative remedies. In May of 2001, Seiden was employed by the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) as ZIP codes operator when her position was abolished and she was returned to a position of CFS clerk. Believing that this change was a discriminatory demotion, she sought pre-complaint counseling with a USPS equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) officer, but did not do so within the 45-day time frame specified in the applicable regulations. Rather, she made her first contact on August 2, 2001, later explaining that the reason for her delay was that she was “waiting for an accommodation.”

The USPS issued a final decision on May 20, 2002, finding that Seiden did not contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the challenged employment action, as required by the regulations. This final decision also notified Seiden that she had 30 days to appeal the decision through the Office of Federal Operations (“OFO”). Thereafter, Seiden, through counsel, filed an appeal *not*with the OFO as directed, but instead filed a request for a hearing with an ALJ in the Detroit District EEO Commission on June 19, 2002. On October 18, 2002, the OFO issued a final decision dismissing Seiden’s appeal as untimely.

After Seiden filed a complaint with the district court, the defendant moved to dismiss her claims for failure to timely exhaust her administrative remedies. The district court granted the defendant-appellee’s motion to dismiss, finding that Seiden had not initially contacted a USPS EEO officer until 71 days after the effective date of the challenged personnel action, well outside of the 45-day regulatory deadline. The district court also found that Seiden had failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies in connection with her appeal to the OFO. It also found that equitable tolling did not apply to Seiden’s situation.

In reviewing a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, this court reviews legal issues *de novo. Merriweather v. City of Memphis,*107 F.3d 396, 398 (6th Cir.1997). Having carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we agree that Seiden failed to timely exhaust *447her administrative remedies. Because the issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicative, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of the motion to dismiss of the defendant-appellee on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion.
June 11, 2015

Ms. M. Anne Swanson HLCM Group, Inc. c/o Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004

Dear Ms. Swanson:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 28, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1800), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

§ 655.68 Special document retention provisions for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2024 under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. ( a ) An employer who files a petition with USCIS to employ H-2B workers in fiscal year 2021 under authority of the temporary increase in the numerical limitation under section 105 of Division O, Public Law 116-260 must maintain for a period of three (3) years from the date of certification, consistent with 20 CFR 655.56 and 29 CFR 503.17, the following: ( 1 ) A copy of the attestation filed pursuant to the regulations in 8 CFR 214.2 governing that temporary increase;
( 2 ) Evidence establishing, at the time of filing the I-129 petition, that employer's business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss), if it cannot employ H-2B nonimmigrant workers in fiscal year 2021;
( 3 ) Documentary evidence establishing that each of the workers the employer requested and/or instructed to apply for a visa, whether named or unnamed on a petition filed pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x), have been issued an H-2B visa or otherwise granted H-2B status during one of the last three (3) fiscal years (fiscal year 2018, 2019, or 2020), unless the H-2B worker(s) is a national of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras and is counted towards the 6,000 cap described in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x)(A)( 2 ). Alternatively, if applicable, employers must maintain documentary evidence that the workers the employer requested and/or instructed to apply for visas are eligible nationals of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras, as defined in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x)(A)( 2 ); and
( 4 ) If applicable, proof of recruitment efforts set forth in § 655.64(a)(5)(i) through (iv) and a recruitment report that meets the requirements set forth in § 655.48(a)(1) through (4) and (7), and maintained throughout the recruitment period set forth in § 655.64(a)(5)(v).
( b ) DOL or DHS may inspect the documents in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section upon request.
( c ) This section expires on October 1, 2024.
[86 FR 28233, May 25, 2021] Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 86 FR 28233, May 25, 2021, § 655.68 was added, effective May 25, 2021, until Sept. 30, 2024.