alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMENIA COUNTRY COMMERCIAL GUIDE

----

MARCH 1999
CHAPTER 3: POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.1 NATURE OF POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES
American-Armenian relations are excellent.  Armenia, per capita, is the third largest recipient ofU.S. aid. The United States Embassy was the first embassy to open in Yerevan in February 1992. The Armenian Embassy opened in Washington in the same year.  U.S. humanitarian andtechnical aid to Armenia emphasizes humanitarian assistance (food and fuel); buildingdemocracy and good governance; modernizing the banking system; fiscal reform; restructuringthe energy sector; agricultural marketing; and creating a regulatory and a financial  frameworkfor private sector development. The U.S. is active in efforts to negotiate an end to the Karabakhconflict.  Armenian and American government officials maintain very close working relations. During the winters of 1993-1995, the U.S. undertook unprecedented large-scale humanitarianassistance to Armenia, providing wheat, kerosene and kerosene heaters to protect Armeniansfrom the worst effects of the winter.  In 1997 and 1998, the U.S. has continued large scale fueland food assistance, but has changed the emphasis of aid to political and economic development,and assistance for expansion of the private sector.  USAID has a separate Mission in Yerevan,which cooperates closely with the Georgia/Azerbaijan Mission.  The U.S. Peace Corps has beenoperating in Armenia since 1992. More than 50 U.S. volunteers work in Armenian cities and thecountryside providing business consulting and English language training.  US Treasury provideslong and short term advisors to the government in a range of financial areas. USDA has activeeducational, marketing, loan and grant programs.
In 1992, Armenia signed three agreements with the United States affecting trade between the twocountries.  The agreements were ratified by the Armenian parliament in September 1995 andwent into force in the beginning of 1996.  These are:
****

This chart presents 1996 Montana exports to the New Independent States of the former SovietUnion.  Data used to create the chart were collected by the **Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce**, With further analysis by the **University of Massachusetts,Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research** (MISER).  For more informationcall Pat Sweeney at **BISNIS**, at (202)482-4655x20.
'95 export data for Montana
Return to USA Export Map
Return to BISNIS Home Page
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.430 Benchmark-equivalent health benefits coverage. ( a ) *Aggregate actuarial value.* Benchmark-equivalent coverage is health benefits coverage that has an aggregate actuarial value determined in accordance with § 457.431 that is at least actuarially equivalent to the coverage under one of the benchmark packages specified in § 457.420.
( b ) *Required coverage.* In addition to the coverage required under § 457.410(b), benchmark-equivalent health benefits coverage must include coverage for the following categories of services: ( 1 ) Inpatient and outpatient hospital services.
( 2 ) Physicians' surgical and medical services.
( 3 ) Laboratory and x-ray services.
( c ) *Additional coverage.* ( 1 ) In addition to the categories of services in paragraph (b) of this section, benchmark-equivalent coverage may include coverage for any additional services specified in § 457.402.
( 2 ) If the benchmark coverage package used by the State for purposes of comparison in establishing the aggregate actuarial value of the benchmark-equivalent coverage package includes coverage for prescription drugs, mental health services, vision services or hearing services, then the actuarial value of the coverage for each of these categories of service in the benchmark-equivalent coverage package must be at least 75 percent of the value of the coverage for such a category or service in the benchmark plan used for comparison by the State.
( 3 ) If the benchmark coverage package does not cover one of the categories of services in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, then the benchmark-equivalent coverage package may, but is not required to, include coverage for that category of service.
Mail EnvelopeProperties (4628F06B.lBE: 4 : 12192)

SUbject: Creation Date: From:

Created By:

Recipients Baltimorel Cecil County 8hr Ozone State Implementation Plans 

### 4/20/07 12:55PM Brian Hug
bhug@mde.state.md.us

FIELD OFFICES PO.FIELD OFFICES

- 

### - - AA Co Health Officer (Anne Arundel Health AL Co Health Officer (Allehany County Hea BA Co Health Officer (Baltimore CountyHe BA Cty Health Officer (Baltimore City Hea CA Co Health Officer (Calvert CountyHeal CE CoHealth Officer (Cecil County Health CH Co Health Officer (Charles County Heal CL Co Health Officer (Carroll County Heal CO and KE Co Health Officer (Caroline and DO Co Health Officer (Dorchester County H FRCo Health Officer (Frederick CountyHe GA CoHealth Officer (Garrett County Heal HACoHealth Officer (Harford CountyHeal HO Co Health Officer (Howard County Healt MO Co Health Officer (Montgomery CountyH PG Co Health Officer (Prince Georges Coun QACO Health Officer (Queen Annes County SM Co Health Officer (St Marys County Hea SO Co Health Officer (Somerset County Hea TACoHealth Officer (Talbot County Healt W A CoHealth Officer (Washington CountyH 

### WI Co Health Officer (Wicomico County Hea WO Co Health Officer (Worcester County He

mde.state.md.us

MDEP02.MDEDOM

aheltibridle CC (Andrew Heltibridle) bhug CC (Brian Hug) dfranks CC (Diane Franks) drabin CC (Debbie Rabin) jwilkinsonCC (Jim Wilkinson) rcarroll CC (Randall Carroll) rmosier CC (RandyMosier) rthunell CC (Roger Thunell)Post Office FIELD OFFICES PO.FIELD OFFICES



### - - - MDEP02.MDEDOM

Files MESSAGE Cecil Hearing.DOC BaItHearing.DOC
Options Expiration Date: Priority: Reply Requested: Return Notification:

Concealed Subject: Security: Size 7848 26112 26112

None Standard No None

No Standard Route

mde.state.md.us

Date & Time 04/20107 12:SSPM 04/18/0703 :36PM 04/18/0703:36PM
#### CITY OF LAFAYETTE, Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald R. BORISON and Hazel M. Langlinais, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 4598.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 28, 1974.

Ronald J. Judice, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellant.

Davidson, Meaux, Onebane & Donohoe by V. Farley Sonnier, Lafayette, for defendants-appellees.

Before FRUGÉ, DOMENGEAUX, and and WATSON, JJ.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

This is an expropriation suit instituted by plaintiff against defendants, Ronald R. Borison and Hazel M. Langlinais. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court in respect to the property valuations determined and as to the severance damages awarded. -

The present suit was consolidated for trial and appeal with a companion suit, City of Lafayette, Louisiana v. Babineaux, 297 So.2d 220 (No. 4597 on the docket of this court). We are rendering judgment in that suit today.

For the reasons assigned in the above-mentioned case, the judgment appealed from in the instant suit is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against plaintiff-appellant.
Exhibit 10.36
​
SUPPLEMENT
​
This Supplement (this “Supplement”) to License Agreement by and between Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. and Affamed Therapeutics Limited is made and entered into as of January 18, 2021.
​
WHEREAS, Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. (“Ocular”) and Affamed Therapeutics Limited (“Affamed”) entered into a License Agreement dated as of October 28, 2020 (the “License Agreement”); and
​
WHEREAS, Ocular and Affamed desire to supplement the License Agreement by adding a reference to two patents to Exhibit A to the License Agreement;
​
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
​
1.All terms used in this Supplement and not defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the License Agreement.
​
2.Exhibit A is supplemented by adding the following:
​
·KR20190057353A
·CN102395401B
​
3.Except as supplemented hereby, each of the terms and provisions of the License Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
​
4.This Supplement may be executed in counterparts, all of which taken together shall be regarded as one and the same instrument.
​
​



​
IN WITNESS WHEROF, the Parties have executed this Supplement through their duly authorized representatives to be effective as of the Effective Date.
​
	OCULAR THERAPEUTIX, INC.
	​

	​
	​

	By:
	 /s/ Antony Mattessich
	​

	Name: 
	Antony Mattessich
	​

	Title: 
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	​

	​
	​

	AFFAMED THERAPEUTICS LIMITED
	​

	​
	​

	By:
	 /s/ Dayao Zhao
	​

	Name: 
	Dayao Zhao
	​

	Title: 
	CEO
	​



​
41236.

#### DIXON v. THE STATE.

Pannell, Judge.

While the Act of 1955, approved March 8, 1955, amending Ch. 26-45 of the Code (Ga. L. 1955, p. 578), struck *Code*§ 26-4507 relating to the crime of escape of misdemeanor convicts, and struck *Code*§ 26-4509, relating to the crime of escape of felony convicts, and enacted a new *Code*§ 26-4507, in lieu of the old, the new Code section relating to both, the offense with which the defendant is here charged was one of escape occurring prior to the Act of 1955, which offense, under the provisions of *Code*§ 26-103 “shall be prosecuted and punished under the laws in force at the time of the commission thereof, notwithstanding the repeal of such laws before such trial takes place.” *Patton v. State,*80 Ga. 714 (6 SE 273).

The offense of escape from the penitentiary under former *Code*§ 26-4509 was not indictable until the escapee was “thereafter retaken” and the statute of limitation as to prosecution therefor did not begin to run until the retaking, *Smith v. State,*8 Ga. App. 297, 298 (68 SE 1071); therefore, an indictment thereunder which alleges that the escape occurred more than four years prior to the return of the indictment, but does not show when the escapee was thereafter retaken, does not on its face show that the four year statute of limitation against prosecuting has run *(Code*§ 27-601), and is not subject to demurrer on that ground.

However, “the indictment must not only show to the court upon its face, that a public law of the State has been violated, but it should also appear, that the defendant has been in-*557dieted therefor, in the manner, and *within the time,*prescribed by the laws of the land,” *(McLane v. State,*4 Ga. 335, 340; *Taylor v. State,*44 Ga. App. 64, 74, 160 SE 667), and an indictment which does not show on its face that the offense charged was committed within the statute of limitation is defective *(Love v. State,*70 Ga. App. 40, 41, 27 SE2d 337; *Tipton v. State,*119 Ga. 304 (1), 46 SE 436), and because of its failure “to allege the commission of an offense within the statutory period of' limitation is fatally defective and sets out no offense against the laws of the State.” *Taylor v. State,*44 Ga. App. 64, 74, supra. The trial court erred in not sustaining the motion to quash the indictment on this ground, it not appearing from the indictment that the alleged escapee was “thereafter retaken” within four years prior to the return of indictment. *Code*§ 27-601.

Submitted April 6, 1965

Decided April 14, 1965.

*Casey Thigpen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter C. McMillan, Jr., Solicitor General,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jesse J. CUEVAS.

No. 66298.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 6, 1980.

*984William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., J. Kevin McNary, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Robert Barnard, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEMMON, J., would remand to determine whether assignment # 14 represents reversible error.
§ 438.352 External quality review protocols. The Secretary, in coordination with the National Governor's Association, must develop protocols for the external quality reviews required under this subpart. Each protocol issued by the Secretary must specify— ( a ) The data to be gathered;
( b ) The sources of the data;
( c ) The activities and steps to be followed in collecting the data to promote its accuracy, validity, and reliability;
( d ) The proposed method or methods for validly analyzing and interpreting the data once obtained; and
( e ) Instructions, guidelines, worksheets, and other documents or tools necessary for implementing the protocol.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Fred WEINFURT, Appellee.

No. 81-1046.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 17, 1982.

*1188Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Max Rudmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

P. D. Aiken, Fort Lauderdale, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee’s defense to the charge of sale of a controlled substance was entrapment. He contended that a confidential informant employed and paid by the police enticed him into delivering the contraband and was present at the sale. Upon appellee’s motion the trial court ruled that appellee could take the deposition of the informant; however, appellee was unsuccessful in obtaining the deposition of the informant and sought sanctions against the State for its failure to divulge the informant’s whereabouts. It appears the State decided it would not comply with the court’s order to either produce the witness for deposition or give appellee his address. Since that left the court no alternative, it dismissed the information.

Oddly enough, on appeal the State contends the trial judge should have continued the case. That contention is rejected out of hand. The record reflects the State was in touch with the witness and simply refused to divulge his whereabouts. The sanction therefore was perfectly appropriate and the order of dismissal is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.
§ 456.106 Organization and composition of UR committee; disqualification from UR committee membership. ( a ) For the purpose of this subpart, “UR committee” includes any group organized under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) The UR committee must be composed of two or more physicians, and assisted by other professional personnel.
( c ) The UR committee must be constituted as— ( 1 ) A committee of the hospital staff;
( 2 ) A group outside the hospital staff, established by the local medical or osteopathic society and at least some of the hospitals and SNFs in the locality;
( 3 ) A group capable of performing utilization review, established and organized in a manner approved by the Secretary.
( d ) The UR committee may not include any individual who— ( 1 ) Is directly responsible for the care of the patient whose care is being reviewed; or
( 2 ) Has a financial interest in any hospital.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gerard EDWARDS.

No. 63615.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 19, 1979.

In re Gerard Edwards applying for remedial writs. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied.
# C_2005194EN.01000101.xml

| 9.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 August 2005

(2005/C 194/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2370 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,13 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4615 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69160 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3242 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5595 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 78,86 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9300 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9557 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5736 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,533 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 243,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0578 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4279 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,52 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,583 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6347 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6145 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4996 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6135 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7834 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0416 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 255,56 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0093 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0308 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3775 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 085,49 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,636 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 69,179 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,1300 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,890 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2370

JPY

Japanese yen

138,13

DKK

Danish krone

7,4615

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69160

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3242

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5595

ISK

Iceland króna

78,86

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9300

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9557

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5736

CZK

Czech koruna

29,533

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

243,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0578

RON

Romanian leu

3,4279

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,52

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,583

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6347

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6145

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4996

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6135

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7834

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0416

KRW

South Korean won

1 255,56

ZAR

South African rand

8,0093

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0308

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3775

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 085,49

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,636

PHP

Philippine peso

69,179

RUB

Russian rouble

35,1300

THB

Thai baht

50,890

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

__ 2011

________ - NM -

____ 179

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significan t? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
§ 408.100 Termination of coverage for nonpayment of premiums. ( a ) *Effective date of termination.* Termination is effective on the last day of the grace period. The determination is not made until 15 days after that day to allow for processing of remittances mailed late in the grace period, as provided in § 408.68.
( b ) *Notice of termination.* ( 1 ) SSA sends the enrollee notice of termination between 15 and 30 days after the end of the grace period and includes information regarding the enrollee's right of appeal.
( 2 ) CMS notifies any intermediary or carrier that had previously been informed that the enrollee had met the SMI deductible for the year in which the termination is effective.
#### SCHOOLHOUSE CORPORATION *v.*WILLIAM H. WOOD, JR., CONSERVATOR (ESTATE OF HILDA RANKIN OLYPHANT), ET AL.

*Robert M. Shields, Jr.,*in support of the petition.

*Robert L. Wyld, Sheila A. Huddleston, Stephanie M. Gitlin, Edward F. Scully*and *Patrick E. Scully,*in opposition.

Decided March 13, 1997

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 43 Conn. App. 586 (AC 15599), is denied.
NO. 06-15-00104-CR

KENNEDY DEWAYNE RILEY, § ON APPEAL FROM THE 

 Appellant § 

 § 202ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

VS. § 

 § 

STATE OF TEXAS, § COURT OF BOWIE COUNY 

 Appellee § TEXAS 

 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING STATE’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

COMES NOW the State of Texas by and through her below named Criminal 

District Attorney and pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and hereby 

requests a thirty (30) day extension of the time period for the filing of the State’s 

Brief and in support of the same should show the Court as follows: 

I.

1. This case is pending from the 202ND Judicial District of Bowie County, Texas. 

2. The case is styled State of Texas v. Kennedy Dewayne Riley, Cause No. 13F0131-

202 

3. Appellant was found guilty to the offense of capital murder sentenced to life 

without parole, in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice. 

ACCEPTED

06-15-00104-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

12/16/2015 4:59:15 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/16/2015 4:59:15 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
5. Appellant’s Briefs were filed on November 16, 2015 making the State’s Brief 

originally due on or about Decembeer 16, 2015. 

6. The State has not previously requested an extension of time for filing the State’s 

Brief.

7. The Brief was not timely prepared in this matter due to the press of the business, 

both trial and appellate. Said business includes, but is not limited to, the following 

since Appellant’s brief was filed:

 Preparation and attendance at the pre-indictment and trial dockets in the 5th

District Court on November 16, 2015.

 Thanksgiving Holiday November 26-27, 2015.

 Preparation and attendance at revocation and sentencing docket in the 5th

District Court in New Boston, Texas on November 20, 2015.

 Preparation and attendance at the Grand Jury on December 10, 2015.

 Pre-trial meetings and trial preparation for the trial of State of Texas v. Joshua 

Jacobs throughout the week of December 7-11, 2015. Preparation and 

attendance at jury selection on December 15, 2015.

 Preparation and attendance at the pre-indictment and trial dockets in the 5th

District Court on December 16, 2015.
II.

The State’s attorney has been diligent in pursuing this appeal and is not seeking this 

extension for the purpose of delay.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, on the bases of Rule 73 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

the State respectfully requests this Court to grant the Motion for Extension of Time 

for the filing of the State’s Brief.

Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

__/s/ Lauren N. Sutton______

LAUREN N. SUTTON

Texas Bar No. 24079421

601 Main Street

Texarkana, TX 75501

Lauren.sutton@txkusa.org

ASSISTANT DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Motion to 

Extend Time for Filing State’s Brief was forwarded to Mr. Clint Allen, counsel for 

Appellant, on this the 16th day of December, 2015. 

__/s/ Lauren N. Sutton______ 

LAUREN N. SUTTON
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1839 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 15-year recovery 

period for nonresidential real property in rural areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. ROSKAM, 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. FEENEY, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. BARTLETT

of Maryland, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. KUHL of New York, and Mr. CANTOR) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a 15-year recovery period for nonresidential real property 

in rural areas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 15-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR NONRESIDEN4 TIAL REAL PROPERTY IN RURAL AREAS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

6 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

7 to 15-year property) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

8 end of clause (vii), by striking the period at the end of 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1839 IH

1 clause (viii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding at the 

2 end the following new clause: 

3 ‘‘(ix) any nonresidential real property 

4 placed in service in a rural area (as de5 fined in section 1393(a)(2)).’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS