Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
§ 516.16; and (4) A symbol or letter in its records denoting that the Plaintiffs were regarded as section 7(i) exempt commissioned salespeople, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 516.16. Although the Plaintiffs may be correct that the Defendant failed to comply with the DOL’s recording requirements, such a failure would not result in a finding that the retail-service exemption is inapplicable. Rather, this Court has determined that, when an employer fails to comply with the DOL’s recording requirements, the Court should simply issue an injunction requiring the employer to comply with those requirements in the future. Reich v. Cole Enter., Inc., 901 F.Supp. 255, 260 (S.D.Ohio 1993), aff'd, 62 F.3d 775 (6th Cir.1995); see Brennan v. Valley Towing Co., Inc., 515 F.2d 100, 111-12 (9th Cir.1975) . Accordingly, even though the Defendant may
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that when the employer had failed to comply with the reporting requirements of 29 cfr  5162 an order requiring prospective compliance was proper but that additional sanctions for the past violation were not necessary
B. holding deathpenalty sanctions inappropriate where party inadvertently failed to comply with courts order and nothing in the record  even approaches the flagrant bad faith or abuse necessary for the imposition of such sanctions
C. holding that substantial compliance with the requirements for maintaining nonimmigrant student status under 8 cfr  2142f does not constitute substantial compliance with the requirements for obtaining an extension of stay under 8 cfr  2141c
D. holding sanctions order not final where the amount of sanctions had not yet been determined
E. holding that where party had reasonable grounds to believe conduct was in compliance with the district courts order imposition of sanctions was not warranted and constituted an abuse of discretion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.