alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending May 12, 2012

----

Bank Holding Companies            Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited, Beijing, People's Republic of China; China Investment Corporation; and Central Huijin Investment Ltd. -- to become bank holding companies and to acquire shares of The Bank of East Asia (U.S.A.), National Association, New York, New York (FRB Order No. 2012-4).            -Approved, May 9, 2012            Banks, Foreign            Agricultural Bank of China Limited, Beijing, People's Republic of China -- to establish a branch in New York, New York (FRB Order No. 2012-5).            -Approved, May 9, 2012                        Bank of China Limited, Beijing, People's Republic of China -- to establish a branch in Chicago, Illinois (FRB Order No. 2012-6).            -Approved, May 9, 2012            Monetary and Financial Policy            Term Deposit Facility -- TDF auction of $3 billion in 28-day term deposits on May 14, 2012.            -Announced, May 9, 2012            Regulations and Policies            Stress Testing -- final interagency supervisory guidance on stress testing for banking organizations with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets.            -Approved, May 9, 2012            Enforcement            AB&T Financial Corporation, Gastonia, North Carolina -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.            -Announced, May 10, 2012                        ACME Holding Company, Inc., Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Mulberry, Arkansas; ACME Holding Company, Inc.; and Allied Bank -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.            -Announced, May 10, 2012            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Franklin Credit Management Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended ending December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jeffrey R. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

/s/ Jeffrey R. Johnson
---------------------------
Jeffrey R. Johnson
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2005
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 46647)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group, Subcommittee J—Population and Patient-Oriented Training.                    

*Date:*                         October 29-30, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 4 p.m.                      

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                      

*Place:*                         The Westin Arlington Gateway, 801 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22203.                      

*Contact Person:*                         Ilda M. McKenna, PhD., Scientific Review Administrator, Research Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8111, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-7481,                         *mckennai@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 13, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-4067 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
-----Original Message----- 

From: lindalbennett@verizon.net [mailto:lindalbennett@verizon.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:28 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Bennett 

20 Ralph Piteri Ter 

Watertown, MA 02472
§ 1544.201 Acceptance and screening of individuals and accessible property. ( a ) *Preventing or deterring the carriage of any explosive, incendiary, or deadly or dangerous weapon.* Each aircraft operator must use the measures in its security program to prevent or deter the carriage of any weapon, explosive, or incendiary on or about each individual's person or accessible property before boarding an aircraft or entering a sterile area.
( b ) *Screening of individuals and accessible property.* Except as provided in its security program, each aircraft operator must ensure that each individual entering a sterile area at each preboard screening checkpoint for which it is responsible, and all accessible property under that individual's control, are inspected for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries as provided in § 1544.207.
( c ) *Refusal to transport.* Each aircraft operator must deny entry into a sterile area and must refuse to transport— ( 1 ) Any individual who does not consent to a search or inspection of his or her person in accordance with the system prescribed in this part; and
( 2 ) Any property of any individual or other person who does not consent to a search or inspection of that property in accordance with the system prescribed by this part.
( d ) *Prohibitions on carrying a weapon, explosive, or incendiary.* Except as provided in §§ 1544.219, 1544.221, and 1544.223, no aircraft operator may permit any individual to have a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, on or about the individual's person or accessible property when onboard an aircraft.
( e ) *Staffing.* Each aircraft operator must staff its security screening checkpoints with supervisory and non-supervisory personnel in accordance with the standards specified in its security program.
-----Original Message----- 

From: kaiserme@q.com [mailto:kaiserme@q.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:23 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Maxine Kaiser 

550 South 400 East #3403 

Salt Lake City, UT 84111
#### § 213.55 Track alinement.

(a) Except as provided in [paragraph (b)](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-213.55#p-213.55(b)) of this section, alinement may not deviate from uniformity more than the amount prescribed in the following table:

| Class of track | Tangent track | Curved track | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| The deviation of the mid-offset from a 62-foot line1 may not be more than—(inches) | The deviation of the mid-ordinate from a 31-foot chord2 may not be more than—(inches) | The deviation of the mid-ordinate from a 62-foot chord2 may not be more than—(inches) |
| Class 1 track | 5 | 3 N/A | 5 | |
| Class 2 track | 3 | 3 N/A | 3 | |
| Class 3 track | 13/4 | 11/4 | 13/4 | |
| Class 4 track | 11/2 | 1 | 11/2 | |
| Class 5 track | 3/4 | 1/2 | 5/8 | |
| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 The ends of the line shall be at points on the gage side of the line rail, five-eighths of an inch below the top of the railhead. Either rail may be used as the line rail; however, the same rail shall be used for the full length of that tangential segment of the track. | | | | |
| 2 The ends of the chord shall be at points on the gage side of the outer rail, five-eighths of an inch below the top of the railhead. | | | | |
| 3 N/A—Not Applicable | | | | |

(b) For operations at a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches, the alinement of the outside rail of the curve may not deviate from uniformity more than the amount prescribed in the following table:

| Class of track | Curved track | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| The deviation of the mid-ordinate from a 31-foot chord1 may not be more than—(inches) | The deviation of the mid-ordinate from a 62-foot chord1 may not be more than—(inches) |
| Class 1 track2 | 3 N/A | 11/4 | |
| Class 2 track2 | 3 N/A | 11/4 | |
| Class 3 track | 3/4 | 11/4 | |
| Class 4 track | 3/4 | 7/8 | |
| Class 5 track | 1/2 | 5/8 | |
| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 The ends of the chord shall be at points on the gage side of the outer rail, five-eighths of an inch below the top of the railhead. | | | |
| 2 Restraining rails or other systems may be required for derailment prevention. | | | |
| 3 N/A—Not Applicable | | | |

[[78 FR 16100](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/78-FR-16100), Mar. 13, 2013]
#### Jodie Irish v. The State.

*No. 620.*

*Decided February 13.*

*1.*Local Option Election—Posting Notices—Burden of Proof.—A party attacking the validity of a local option election upon the ground that the proper notices of the election were not posted, has the burden of proof to establish that fact. Overruling James v. The State, 21 Texas Criminal Appeals, 353.

S. Same—Order Declaring the Result—Presumption as to.—It will be presumed that the County Court passed upon all preliminary matters pertaining to the legality of the election at the time it entered the order declaring the result of the election. The rule as to presumptions with regard to judgments in civil cases applies.

Appeal from the County Court of Shelby. Tried below before Hon. R. L. Parker, County Judge.

*131This appeal is from a conviction for violation of the local option law in Shelby County, the punishment assessed being a fine of $100.

Bo statement required.

*Hugh B. Short,*for appellant.

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

HURT, Presiding Judge.

Conviction for violation of the local option law. Upon the trial the State proved several sales by the defendant to the party alleged in the indictment. The appellant should have requested the court to confine the State to one transaction. This was not done. Appellant introduced the party who was the clerk of the County Court at the time the election was ordered, by whom he proved, that he (the clerk) posted one or two notices of the election, and that he gave to other parties the balance of the notices, requesting them to post them. The clerk testified, that he did not know whether these notices were posted or not. The law required the clerk to post or cause to be posted at least five copies of the order of election. We hold, that the party attacking the legality of the election must prove that the proper notices were not posted, and that the rule stated in James v. The State, 21 Texas Criminal Appeals, 353, is overruled. It will be presumed that the County Court, when it entered the order declaring the result of the election and prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors within the county, passed upon all preliminary matters appertaining to the legality of the election. The same rule obtains in cases of this character that applies to judgments in civil cases. See Lawler v. White, 27 Texas, 250; Fitch v. Boyer, 51 Texas, 337.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, April 6, 1995 (57), Para 57.10 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 660]
[Page 585]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.57.10  providing for the consideration of h.r. 660

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART, by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up the 
following resolution (H. Res. 126):

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 660) to amend the Fair Housing Act to modify 
     the exemption from certain familial status discrimination 
     prohibitions granted to housing for older persons. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  When said resolution was considered.
  After debate,
  On motion of Mr. DIAZ-BALART the previous question was ordered on the 
resolution to its adoption or rejection and under the operation thereof, 
the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said resolution was agreed to 
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
```
-----Original Message----- 

From: kcoombs1@cox.net [mailto:kcoombs1@cox.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:28 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

Since mental illness physical illness manifest emotionally and 

mentally, I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance 

companies from charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other outof-pocket expenses for mental health treatment than they would for 

other physical health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health 

care and physical health care coverage are included in a single 

deductible. 

Yours truly, 

Karen Coombs 

Sincerely, 

Karen Coombs 

711 Barbara Ave 

Solana Beach, CA 92075
|EXHIBIT 12.1

Central Vermont Public Service Corporation
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
For the Years Ended December 31
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|(dollars in thousands)                           | 2006    | 2005(a) | 2004(a) | 2003(a)  | 2002(b) 
|------------------------------------------------ | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------- | --------
|Earnings, as defined by S-K 503(d):              |         |         |         |          |         
|Pre-tax income from continuing operations        | $28,107 | $(672)  | $9,561  | $27,279  | $28,505 
|Plus:  distributed income                        | 2,146   | 1,938   | 1,229   | 2,441    | 14,679  
|Less:  equity in earnings                        | (3,240) | (1,869) | (1,225) | (1,801)  | (15,512)
|Less:  interest capitalized                      | (102)   | (79)    | (76)    | (87)     | (41)    
|Less:  preference security dividends, as defined | (572)   | (624)   | (624)   | (2,031)  | (2,547) 
|Plus:  fixed charges, as below                   | 9,917   | 11,161  | 12,090  | 14,314   | 16,638  
|Total Earnings, as defined                       | $36,256 | $9,855  | $20,955 | $40,115  | $41,722 
|                                                 |         |         |         |          |         
|Fixed charges, as defined:                       |         |         |         |          |         
|Interest on debt                                 | $8,271  | $9,519  | $10,397 | $ 11,150 | $13,021 
|Imputed interest in rental charges               | 1,074   | 1,018   | 1,069   | 1,133    | 1,070   
|Preferred dividends, as defined                  | 572     | 624     | 624     | 2,031    | 2,547   
|Total fixed charges, as defined                  | $9,917  | $11,161 | $12,090 | $14,314  | $16,638 
|                                                 |         |         |         |          |         
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges               | 3.66    | 0.88    | 1.73    | 2.80     | 2.51    
|                                                 |         |         |         |          |         

| | (a) Reflects Catamount Energy Corporation as discontinued operations.
(b) Reflects correction of an error that resulted in a $0.8 million reduction in Income from continuing
     operations, and correction of errors that impacted the Consolidated Balance Sheets and 
     Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 193
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 193 appear at 71 FR 33408, June 9, 2006.

§ 193.2903 Security procedures. Each operator shall prepare and follow one or more manuals of written procedures to provide security for each LNG plant. The procedures must be available at the plant in accordance with § 193.2017 and include at least: ( a ) A description and schedule of security inspections and patrols performed in accordance with § 193.2913;
( b ) A list of security personnel positions or responsibilities utilized at the LNG plant;
( c ) A brief description of the duties associated with each security personnel position or responsibility;
( d ) Instructions for actions to be taken, including notification of other appropriate plant personnel and law enforcement officials, when there is any indication of an actual or attempted breach of security;
( e ) Methods for determining which persons are allowed access to the LNG plant;
( f ) Positive identification of all persons entering the plant and on the plant, including methods at least as effective as picture badges; and
( g ) Liaison with local law enforcement officials to keep them informed about current security procedures under this section.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, July 25, 1995 (101), Para 101.8 San Diego Coastal Corrections]
[Page 1187]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.101.8  san diego coastal corrections

  The Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1943) to amend 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to deem certain municipal 
wastewater treatment facilities discharging into ocean waters as the 
equivalent of secondary treatment facilities.
  When said bill was considered and read twice.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. McINNIS, pursuant to clause 4 of rule 
XIII, recognized Mr. SHUSTER and Mr. MINETA, each for 30 minutes.
  After debate,
  Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XIII, the previous question on the bill 
was considered as ordered.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read a 
third time by title.
  Mr. MINETA moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure with instructions to report the bill 
back to the House with an amendment which provides that chemically 
enhanced primary treatment as required by this Act result in the removal 
of not less than 58 percent of the biological oxygen demand (on an 
annual average) and not less than 80 percent of the total suspended 
solids (on a monthly average).
  After debate,
  By unanimous consent, the previous question was ordered on the motion 
to recommit with instructions.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House recommit said bill with instructions?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. McINNIS, announced that the nays had it.
  Mr. MINETA objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not 
present and not voting.
  A quorum not being present,
  The roll was called under clause 4, rule XV, and the call was taken by 
electronic device.

Yeas

179

When there appeared

Nays

245
```