alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §209d. Appointment of osteopaths as commissioned officers

Graduates of colleges of osteopathy whose graduates are eligible for licensure to practice medicine or osteopathy in a majority of the States of the United States, or approved by a body or bodies acceptable to the Secretary, shall be eligible, subject to the other provisions of this Act, for appointment as commissioned medical officers in the Public Health Service.

(Feb. 28, 1948, ch. 83, §5(b), 62 Stat. 40; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§5, 8, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is act Feb. 28, 1948, ch. 83, 62 Stat. 38. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as a part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Public Health Service, Surgeon General of Public Health Service, and all other officers and employees of Public Health Service, and functions of all agencies of or in Public Health Service transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1966, eff. June 25, 1966, 31 F.R. 8855, 80 Stat. 1610, set out as a note under section 202 of this title.

Functions of Federal Security Administrator transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and all agencies of Federal Security Agency transferred to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by section 5 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953, set out as a note under section 3501 of this title. Federal Security Agency and office of Administrator abolished by section 8 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953.
#### Ludvik Nemec, Respondent, v. Vantage Press, Incorporated, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
#### August Zaulich v. Thompkins Square Holding Co., Inc.

Motion for a stay denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
! 

 

"#$%&'(%)*#$+#,-.)/'000

1$/%)0*2.,('312#0


		




4&*2.,(56&-7/280,#8

1,-%)#9%'312#0
		




2)#9%56&-7/280,#8

/&10:1-)/$'312#0

		




);1-)/$56&-7/280,#8


#2*-%$*21)9%$.%'./*%



-#%$/<'2/=#$1


%)%>-#$% ?	
@	 




1,&/8/)% ?	
@

 


?3:A@

,#28/,('312&*#;'-%>>124':1B*%+122.*-'

1**-%;0)%*,-%2'312#0


/,-#)1&0/))%2'312#0




#2*-%$*21)9%$.%'./*%



-#%$/<'2/=#$1


%)%>-#$% ?	
@	 




1,&/8/)% ?	
@

 


**#2$%B&7#2%7%$41$*&'

21$%2/,1'000'"%7732.88%**1$4"#-$8/*-

	

	




	




C!0A'#$D%-1)7#7

-/8&%)71$41))*-#&%&/8/)12)B&/*.1*%4'

)1/$*/77&'

90

''A0

"'3'1$4

*-2#.E-

'

%7%$41$*&0

1&%#0
 ,9 




		

		











	

>#$ ,#$&/4%21*/#$ #7 %7%$41$*&F %G.%&* *# /)% #*/,% #7 .>>)%8%$*1) .*-#2/*B

>.2&.1$* *# #,1) .)% 
H?4@' 1$4 7#2 E##4 ,1.&% *-%2% 1>>%12/$E' *-% #.2* A

%7%$41$*&F %G.%&*' 1$4    1,,%>*/$E 1& 7/)%4 %7%$41$*&F #*/,% #7

.>>)%8%$*1).*-#2/*B0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

DENIED

Judge Susan Illston

UNTIMELY

Case 3:08-cv-00941-SI Document 113 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 2
	 



	 

 













	





















	





















	






  






 ,9 

 

1*%4IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

#$0.&1$))&*#$

$/*%4*1*%&/&*2/,*".4E%

	

0

Case 3:08-cv-00941-SI Document 113 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hovel RIASCOS-CUENU, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-20037.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 20, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.*

*

 This matter is being decided by a quorum. *See*28 U.S.C. 46(d).

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM: **

This court previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant, Hovel Riascos-Cuenu (“Riascos”). *United States v. Riascos-Cuenu,*428 F.3d 1100 (5th Cir.2005). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration in the light of *Lopez v.*Gonzales,— U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006). *Riascos-Cuenu v. United States,*— U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 827, 166 L.Ed.2d 661 (2006).

In the light of *Lopez,*the district court erred by enhancing Riascos’s sentence based on a Texas conviction for possession of cocaine. Because Ríaseos has completed service of his term of imprisonment and was released by the Bureau of Prisons on January 12, 2007, any argument that the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced is moot and the only portion of the sentence remaining for consideration is Ri-ascos’s term of supervised release.

However, as both parties noted in supplemental letter briefs filed with this court, Ríaseos presumably has been deported. In order to resentence him and reduce his term of supervised release, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 requires the defendant to be present and have the opportunity to allocute. Because Ríaseos has been deported and is legally unable, without permission of the Attorney General, to reenter the United States to be present for a resentencing proceeding, there is no relief we are able to grant Riascos and his appeal is moot. *See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis,*483 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2007). The appeal is therefore DISMISSED.

**

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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

SENNEFF

FREEMAN

BLUESTONE NO. CV 08-3440 JCS: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXPERT DISCLOSURES 1 

Bonnie A. Freeman, Esq. (SB 180502)

SENNEFF FREEMAN & BLUESTONE, LLP

50 Old Courthouse Square, Suite 401

P.O. Box 3729

Santa Rosa, CA 95402-3729

Telephone: 707-526-4250

Facsimile: 707-526-0347

Attorneys for Defendant County of Sonoma

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSEMARY JENSEN AND RANDY

JENSEN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA,

Defendant. /

No. CV 08 3440 JCS

STIPULATION AND ORDER

EXTENDING THE TIME FOR EXPERT

DISCLOSURES

Defendant County of Sonoma and Plaintiffs Rosemary Jensen and Randy Jensen have agreed to

stipulate to an order extending the time for exchange of expert disclosures, from April 15, 2010 to May

3, 2010. 

 The purpose of this stipulation is to allow time for the issuance of an order on the pending motion

for summary judgment, which was heard by the Court on April 9, 2010, prior to the parties’ expending

time and costs on preparation of expert reports. This stipulation will not impact the pretrial conference

date or the trial date, as previously determined by the Court’s Minute Order of November 6, 2009

[Docket No. 54].

DATED: April 13, 2010 SENNEFF FREEMAN & BLUESTONE, LLP

By: /s/ Bonnie A. Freeman----------------------------------

Bonnie A. Freeman

Attorneys for Defendant County of Sonoma

Case 3:08-cv-03440-JCS Document 73 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:08-cv-03440-JCS Document72 Filed04/13/10 Page1 of 2
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

SENNEFF

FREEMAN

BLUESTONE NO. CV 08-3440 JCS: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXPERT DISCLOSURES 2 

DATED: April 13, 2010 /s/ Frear Stephen Schmid---------------------------

Frear Stephen Schmid, Attorney for Plaintiffs

ORDER

Good cause appearing, and pursuant to the stipulation to extend the time for the parties to

exchange expert disclosures from April 15, 2010, to May 3, 2010, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

expert disclosures shall be exchanged no later than May 3, 2010.

DATED: ________________ _____________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case3:08-cv-03440-JCS Document72 Filed04/13/10 Page2 of 2

04/13/2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:08-cv-03440-JCS Document 73 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2442 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Thionyl Chloride. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

Mr. MURPHY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Thionyl 

Chloride. 

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

3 SECTION 1. THIONYL CHLORIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.28.01 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Thionyl Chloride) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2442 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 20

- 00054

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

UMAR IBRAHIM AND UMMI LAWMAN

AND THE INTEREST OF N.I. AND J.I., CHILDREN

From the 378th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 98923D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Umar Ibrahim files a Motion of Nonsuit, which we construe as a motion

to dismiss under Rule 42.1(a)(1). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). T he Court grants the

motion, and this appeal is dismissed. Dismissal of this appeal does not prevent a party

from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. Id

.

REX. D. DAVIS

Justi ce

B efore Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Dismissed

O pi nion d elivered and filed September 23, 2020

[ OT06]
### §300x–64. Definitions

#### (a) Definitions for this subpart

For purposes of this subpart:

(1) The term "program involved" means the program of grants established in section 300x or 300x–21 of this title, or both, as indicated by whether the State involved is receiving or is applying to receive a grant under section 300x or 300x–21 of this title, or both.

(2)(A) The term "funding agreement", with respect to a grant under section 300x of this title, has the meaning given such term in section 300x–8 of this title.

(B) The term "funding agreement", with respect to a grant under section 300x–21 of this title, has the meaning given such term in section 300x–34 of this title.

#### (b) Definitions for this part

For purposes of this part:

(1) The term "Comptroller General" means the Comptroller General of the United States.

(2) The term "State", except as provided in sections 300x–7(c)(5) of this title and 300x–33(c)(5) of this title, means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, and each of the territories of the United States.

(3) The term "territories of the United States" means each of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Palau, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia.

(4) The term "interim services", in the case of an individual in need of treatment for substance use disorders who has been denied admission to a program of such treatment on the basis of the lack of the capacity of the program to admit the individual, means services for reducing the adverse health effects of such disorders, for promoting the health of the individual, and for reducing the risk of transmission of disease, which services are provided until the individual is admitted to such a program.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIX, §1954, as added Pub. L. 102–321, title II, §203(a), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 409; amended Pub. L. 117–328, div. FF, title I, §1241(a)(12), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5678.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 117–328 substituted "substance use disorders" for "substance abuse" and "such disorders" for "such abuse".
Exhibit
10.6


 


Technological Services Agreement Subcontracting
Contract


 


Party A:  Tianjin
New Highland Science Development Co., Ltd.


 


Party B:  Hanyu
Oil Technology Development Co., Ltd. of Xinglongtai District, Panjin City


 


WHEREAS,


 


Party A formally entered into a Technological
Services Agreement (“Original Agreement”)with PetroChina Liaohe Oil Field
Company Huanxiling Oil Recovery Plant on January 1, 2007 and has since
started to provide technological services with respect to Block 2-14-16 of
Huanxiling Oil Field as specified therein in accordance with the provisions
thereof,


 


NOW, THEREFORE, through full discussions Party A
and Party B mutually agree as follows in respect of the subcontracting of the
Original Agreement:


 


1.             Party
A intends to subcontract in full all of the rights and obligations assumed by
it under the Original Agreement to Party B to the effect that the same shall be
assumed in full by Party B; and Party B agrees to accept such subcontracting
from Party A and to perform, as from the formal effective date hereof, all of
the rights and obligations required to be assumed by Party A under the Original
Agreement.


 


2.             Party
A shall cease to have any right or obligation under the Original Agreement as
from the formal effective date hereof.


 


3.             The
parties agree that as from the formal effective date hereof the settlement
operations arising in connection with Party B’s performance of this Agreement
and the Original Agreement shall be directly handled by and between Party B and
PetroChina Liaohe Oil Field Company Huanxiling Oil Recovery Plant.


 


4.             The
Original Agreement shall remain valid after the formal effective date hereof. The
original copy of the Original Agreement held by Party A shall be delivered to
Party B for custody, provided that Party A may keep a photocopy of the Original
Agreement.


 


1

















 


5.             In
connection with the cooperation between them on the subcontracting by Party A
of the Original Agreement to Party B, Party A and Party B agree that the scope
of cooperation between them as well their respective rights and obligations in
relation thereto will be separately dealt with in a relevant agreement which
shall subsequently become effective upon execution.


 


6.             This
Agreement is made in two copies. Each party shall hold one copy.


 


2

















 


Signatures and
Sealing of the Parties:


 


 


Party A


 


Tianjin New
Highland Science Development Co., Ltd. (Seal)


 


 


	
  [Company
  Seal]

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (Name of
  Legal Representative)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
   

  



 


3

















 


Party B


 


Hanyu Oil
Technology Development Co., Ltd. of Xinglongtai District, Panjin City (Seal)


 


 


	
  /s/ Du Xiaoping

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (Name of
  Legal Representative)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name: Du Xiaoping

  	
   

  



 


 


Date of Execution:
January 25, 2007


 


4
### §4626. Housing replacement by Federal agency as last resort

(a) If a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency or with Federal financial assistance cannot proceed on a timely basis because comparable replacement dwellings are not available, and the head of the displacing agency determines that such dwellings cannot otherwise be made available, the head of the displacing agency may take such action as is necessary or appropriate to provide such dwellings by use of funds authorized for such project. The head of the displacing agency may use this section to exceed the maximum amounts which may be paid under sections 4623 and 4624 of this title on a case-by-case basis for good cause as determined in accordance with such regulations as the head of the lead agency shall issue.

(b) No person shall be required to move from his dwelling on account of any program or project undertaken by a Federal agency or with Federal financial assistance, unless the head of the displacing agency is satisfied that comparable replacement housing is available to such person.

(Pub. L. 91–646, title II, §206, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1898; Pub. L. 100–17, title IV, §409, Apr. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 253.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–17 amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: "If a Federal project cannot proceed to actual construction because comparable replacement sale or rental housing is not available, and the head of the Federal agency determines that such housing cannot otherwise be made available he may take such action as is necessary or appropriate to provide such housing by use of funds authorized for such project."

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–17 amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: "No person shall be required to move from his dwelling on or after January 2, 1971, on account of any Federal project, unless the Federal agency head is satisfied that replacement housing, in accordance with section 4625(c)(3) of this title, is available to such person."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1987 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–17 effective on effective date provided in regulations promulgated under section 4633 of this title (as amended by section 412 of Pub. L. 100–17), but not later than 2 years after Apr. 2, 1987, see section 418 of Pub. L. 100–17, set out as a note under section 4601 of this title.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2460 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain yarn of carded 

Kashmir (cashmere). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

Mr. SIMMONS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain yarn 

of carded Kashmir (cashmere). 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN YARN OF CARDED KASHMIR (CASH4 MERE). 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.02 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 certain yarn of carded Kashmir (cashmere)) is amended 

8 as follows: 
2 

•HR 2460 IH 

1 (1) By striking ‘‘of 6 run or finer (equivalent 

2 to 19.35 metric yarn system)’’ and inserting ‘‘of 

3 19.35 metric yarn count or finer’’. 

4 (2) By striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

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

7 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

8 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

9 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PSB Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Cole,
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
to the best of my knowledge:

(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/ Robert L. Cole                      November 14, 2006
-------------------------------------   -----------------
Robert L. Cole                          Date
Chief Executive Officer


                                       25
#### In the Matter of Arthur J. Monsees, Petitioner, against George P. Monaghan, as Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York, Respondent.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Callahan, Breitel and Botein, JJ. [See 283 App. Div. 1045.]
§ 521.6 Prerequisites for issuing a complaint. ( a ) The reviewing official may issue a complaint under § 521.7 only if: ( 1 ) The Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in a written statement described in 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1); and
( 2 ) In the case of allegations of liability under § 521.3(a) with respect to a claim, the reviewing official determines that, with respect to such claim or a group of related claims submitted at the same time such claim is submitted (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section), the amount of money or the value of property or services demanded or requested in violation of § 521.3(a) does not exceed $150,000.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, a related group of claims submitted at the same time shall include only those claims arising from the same transaction (e.g., grant, loan, application, or contract) that are submitted simultaneously as part of a single request, demand, or submission.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the reviewing official's authority to join in a single complaint against a person's claims that are unrelated or were not submitted simultaneously, regardless of the amount of money, or the value of property or services, demanded or requested.
Unmonitored Area Analysis

Introduction

This section documents the results of the unmonitored area analysis for the Philadelphia

Nonattainment Area. The purpose of this procedure is to insure that there are no

predicted violations of ambient air quality standards in such areas. This analysis was

prepared in accordance with section 3.4 of the EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models and

Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and

Regional Haze.

1

Methodology

For the purposes of this analysis, the “unmonitored area” includes all counties within the

Philadelphia Nonattainment area and all counties bordering that area.2 See Figure 1 on

page 2.

The baseline data for this analysis is the ozone model data 2002 BaseB1 full.csv dataset,

which contains the daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations, for each grid cell in the

modeling domain, simulated by CMAQ for May 15–September 29 using 2002 BaseB1

emissions data. The projected data uses the ozone model data 2009 BaseB4 full.csv

dataset, which contains the for the 2009 BaseB4 BOTB/BOTW scenario data for the same

period. Both of these datasets were generated by the New York DEC using the

SMOKE/CMAQ modeling system with MM5 meteorology.

3

Processing of the data was done with MATS version 1.1.043 (February 2007). This

involved four steps4:

1. Interpolating the base year ambient data to the spatial fields.

2. Adjusting the spatial fields using the base year gridded model output gradients.

3. Applying the gridded model Relative Response Values to the gradient adjusted

spatial fields.

4. Determining if any unmonitored areas exceed the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS).

1US EPA, Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air

Quality goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, Draft 3.2, pp. 28–31 (Sept., 2006).

2

Id.

3See generally: NY DEC, CMAQ Model Performance Assessment, 8-Hr OTC Modeling, TSD-1e, (Feb.,

2006).

4US EPA 2006, at 29.

1
Results

As Figure 2 on page 3 shows, no grid cells in this analysis were predicted to exceed the

0.08ppm NAAQS for 8-hr ozone.

Figure 1: Counties consided in the analysis.

2
Figure 2: Predicted ozone design values.

3