66.228 5r 109 Apr 2026

Assuming that "66.228" is a section from a specific code and "5r 109" is another section from another code, perhaps related to federal regulations or contracts. Alternatively, maybe there's a misformatting where the user intended to cite 66 CFR 228.5r.109? Or perhaps 66 CFR is Title 66 (which isn't a CFR title, the titles go up to 75), so that's not it.

Wait, let me think again. The user wrote "66.228 5r 109." The "5r 109" part might be a separate citation. Maybe it's a typo or a concatenation of two different citations. For example, "66.228" and then "5r 109." Let me see if 5r 109 refers to a section in the FAR. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, for example, has Part 5, which is "Contracting by Negotiation," and subsections like 5.109. So 5r 109 could be part of FAR 5-109. But the "r" might be a part of the section title or a note. 66.228 5r 109

"66.228" could be a section number. The format with a decimal might be similar to how some codes are organized. Then "5r" could be a subsection or a note. "109" might be another section number or part of a citation to a specific part of the code. Maybe it's part of the Internal Revenue Code, which uses a different format, though. For example, the Internal Revenue Code uses 26 U.S.C. followed by the section number. But here, 66 is more likely to be in other codes. Let me check the Internal Revenue Code—no, 66 is in there, like 26 U.S.C. §6662, which is about penalties for tax understatements. But that's 66.62, not 66.228. Assuming that "66

Alternatively, maybe "66.228" is part of a contract clause. In federal contracts, sometimes they reference specific clauses. For example, 52.228-5 is a clause in the FAR Subpart 52.228—Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts. Let me check the FAR. FAR 52.228-5 is actually titled "Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts (June 2013)" which is a provision. But that's 52.228-5, not 66.228. Maybe the user confused the numbers. Wait, let me think again

Wait, maybe the user is referring to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 66, which might not exist. The standard titles are up to Title 75. So perhaps the user made a typo. Maybe 66 is a part of another code. Let me check. The United States Code is titled 1-54. Title 66 doesn't exist in the US Code. Hmm.

If I consider 66.228 as part of the Department of Defense contracts or Army regulations, maybe. For example, Army Regulation 66-228. Let me check. Army AR 66-228 does exist. It's titled "Military Justice—Administrative Separation Actions." So if the user is referring to this, then 66.228 is the regulation number. But then "5r 109" could be a section within that regulation. However, I'm not sure if AR 66-228 has sections 5 or 109. Alternatively, maybe the user meant FAR 5-109, which I mentioned before.