alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT 

RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. 

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy 

permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free 

electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the 

filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each 

document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free 

copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 3/28/2016 at 9:03 AM and filed on 3/28/2016 

Docket Text:

MINUTE ORDER: Per the parties' [17] Stipulation, the Court ORDERS that the case is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 03/28/2016. 

(lcjeb2) 

1:15-cv-01148-JEB Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Gregory John Mueller 

Peter Newbatt Smith 

1:15-cv-01148-JEB Notice will be delivered by other means to:: 

Activity in Case 1:15-cv-01148-JEB LEVINTHAL et al v. FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION Order

DCD_ECFNotice 

to:

DCD_ECFNotice

03/28/2016 09:04 AM

Bcc:

Hide Details 

From: DCD_ECFNotice@dcd.uscourts.gov

To: DCD ECFNotice@dcd.uscourts.gov, 

Bcc: 

Case Name: LEVINTHAL et al v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Case Number: 1:15-cv-01148-JEB

Filer:

Document Number:No document attached
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129862 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ANNA PAOLINI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129862 

 COA: 262461 

Wayne CC: 03-315477-NO

KMART CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 29, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

p0419 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 26, 2006 

Clerk
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15075 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15076 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15077 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15078 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15079 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15080 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15081 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15082 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15083 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15084 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15085 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15086 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15087 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15088 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15089 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15090 1983
HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 15091 1983
OncoLogic Justification Report



### CH···-lfl~= 

## C-C-Z 

## 11 e&?cc
0 SUMMARY CODE NUMBER 090536 SUBSTANCE ID CAS 1464989-16-9 The final level of carcinogenicity concern for this aldehyde when the anticipated route of exposure is inhalation or injection is MARGINAL.

JUSTIFICATION: Aldehydes are reactive electrophilic chemicals whichmay react with macromolecules or cause crosslinking to initiate carcinogenesis. However, being soft electrophiles, aldehydes tend to react preferentiallywith cellular nucleophiles such as glutathione before attackingmacromolecules. Furthermore, aldehydes canbe readily oxidized to acids which are not electrophilic and canbe readily excreted. Therefore, the carcinogenic actionof aldehydes tends to require relativelyhigh doses and to confine close to the site of administration.In general, the carcinogenic activityof aldehydes decreases with increase inmolecular size. Introduction of hydrophilic group(s) is also inhibitory. alpha,beta-Unsaturation generally increases the carcinogenicpotentialprovided that the beta-position is not stericallyhindered. Halogenation of the alpha-carbon also increases the carcinogenic potential. An aldehyde has a baseline level of concern of LOW-MODERATE. The group towhich the aldehyde is attached (Rl), which is an alkyl group containing seven carbons, is expected to reduce the level of concern. Therefore, the level of concern is reduced to LOW. It is uncertainwhether the substituent(s) onRl denoted as 'Z' have any significant effect on the level of concern. Ingeneral, inhalation and injectionprovide the best chance of delivering the largest possible amount of direct-acting reactive chemicals to target tissue because of a lesser absorptionbarrier and better chance of avoiding detoxificationbyprotective nucleophiles such as glutathione. Exposure to the compoundby either of these routes is expected to raise the level of concern toMARGINAL. The final level of concern when the anticipated route of exposure is inhalation or injection is MARGINAL.



## 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 First Capital, Inc. and Subsidiaries
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael C.
Frederick, Principal Financial and Accounting 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 result of operations of the Company as of
and for the period covered by the Report.


DATE: November 13, 2002                   BY:   /s/ Michael C. Frederick
      ------------------                        ------------------------
                                                Michael C. Frederick
                                                Senior Vice President
                                                  and Treasurer
                                                (Principal Financial and
                                                  Accounting Officer)
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

HOWARD PITTMAN, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-13591 

 HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS 

v. 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION 

SOLUTIONS, et al. 

 Defendants. 

____________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

AS TO iSERVE SERVICING, INC. 

Plaintiff Howard Pittman seeks to collect damages arising from 

Defendant iServe’s alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. 

On December 18, 2018, Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis 

scheduled a settlement conference. The order required that the conference 

be attended by trial counsel and an authorized representative of each party, 

unless expressly excused by the Court. The order cautioned “[f]ailure to 

produce the appropriate person(s) at the conference may result in an award 

of costs and attorney fees incurred by the other parties in connection with 

the conference and/or other sanctions against the noncomplying party and/or 

counsel.” [ECF No. 125, PageID.2746]. 
2 

No company representative for Defendant iServe appeared at the 

settlement conference. This is the basis of Pittman’s motion; he seeks the 

sanction of a default judgment against iServe. 

I. ANALYSIS 

The first procedural step before a party can get a default judgment is 

entry of default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Shepard Claims Serv. Inc. v. 

Williams Darrah & Assoc., 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986). Pittman failed 

to obtain a clerk’s entry of default against Defendant iServe. Heard v. 

Caruso, 351 Fed.Appx. 1, 15-16 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Prior to obtaining a default 

judgment under either Rule 55(b)(1) or Rule 55(b)(2), there must be an entry 

of default as provided by Rule 55(a).”) (quoting 10A Charles Alan Wright, 

Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2682, 

at 13 (3rd ed. 1998)). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (“When a party against 

whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or 

otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk 

must enter the party’s default”.). 

II. CONCLUSION 

Pittman must obtain a clerk’s entry of default before the Court can enter 

a default judgment. 
3 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment without 

prejudice. 

Plaintiff must request a clerk’s entry of default by Friday, November 1, 

2019. After that entry is obtained, he must file his motion for default judgment 

within seven (7) days. If Plaintiff fails to comply with either of these deadlines, 

his claims against iServe will be dismissed with prejudice. No extensions will 

be given. 

IT IS ORDERED. 

Dated: October 25, 2019 s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

 Victoria A. Roberts 

 United States District Judge
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2601 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2602 Filed 06/09/17 Page 2 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2603 Filed 06/09/17 Page 3 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2604 Filed 06/09/17 Page 4 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2605 Filed 06/09/17 Page 5 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2606 Filed 06/09/17 Page 6 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2607 Filed 06/09/17 Page 7 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2608 Filed 06/09/17 Page 8 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2609 Filed 06/09/17 Page 9 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2610 Filed 06/09/17 Page 10 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2611 Filed 06/09/17 Page 11 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2612 Filed 06/09/17 Page 12 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2613 Filed 06/09/17 Page 13 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2614 Filed 06/09/17 Page 14 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2615 Filed 06/09/17 Page 15 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2616 Filed 06/09/17 Page 16 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2617 Filed 06/09/17 Page 17 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2618 Filed 06/09/17 Page 18 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2619 Filed 06/09/17 Page 19 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2620 Filed 06/09/17 Page 20 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2621 Filed 06/09/17 Page 21 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2622 Filed 06/09/17 Page 22 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2623 Filed 06/09/17 Page 23 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2624 Filed 06/09/17 Page 24 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2625 Filed 06/09/17 Page 25 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2626 Filed 06/09/17 Page 26 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2627 Filed 06/09/17 Page 27 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2628 Filed 06/09/17 Page 28 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2629 Filed 06/09/17 Page 29 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2630 Filed 06/09/17 Page 30 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2631 Filed 06/09/17 Page 31 of 32
Case 2:14-cv-13897-GCS-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.2632 Filed 06/09/17 Page 32 of 32
EXHIBIT 4.7
                                                                     -----------

                      AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SECURITY AGREEMENT

         This AMENDMENT NO. 1 (this "Amendment") is made as of April 3, 2003 by
and between SMARTSERV ONLINE, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Debtor"), and
Global Capital Funding Group, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Secured
Party").

         WHEREAS, Debtor and Secured Party entered into a Security Agreement
dated as of February 14, 2003 (the "Security Agreement"), pursuant to which
Secured Party was granted a security interest in certain of the Debtor's
property (the "Collateral") which secures that certain Convertible Debenture
dated as of February 14, 2003 in the amended Principal Amount of One Million One
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,000) made by Debtor and issued to Secured Party
(the "Convertible Debenture"),

         WHEREAS, Debtor and Secured Party, pursuant to that certain Amendment
Number 1 to Convertible Debenture dated of even date herewith, have agreed to
increase the principal amount of the Convertible Debenture from $1,000,000 to
$1,100,000;

         WHEREAS, Debtor and Secured Party desire to amend this Security
Agreement to provide for a security interest in the Collateral to secure the
Debenture.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and intending to be
legally bound hereby, Debtor and Secured Party hereby agree as follows:

         1. The Security Agreement shall be amended so that the term "Note"
shall be defined as "Note - means that certain 10% Convertible Debenture dated
as of February 14, 2003, in the amended principal amount of $1,100,000, made and
executed by Debtor and issued to Secured Party, and all amendments and
supplements thereto, restatements thereof and renewals, extensions,
restructurings and refinancings thereof."

         2. All other terms and provisions of the Security Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect and unchanged by this Amendment.

         Duly executed and delivered by the parties on the date first written
above.

                           SMARTSERV ONLINE, INC.


                           By:    /s/ Thomas W. Haller
                                  --------------------
                           Name:  Thomas W. Haller
                           Title: Senior Vice President and
                                  Chief Financial Officer


                           GLOBAL CAPITAL FUNDING GROUP, L.P.
                           By its General Partner, Global Capital
                           Management Services, Inc.


                           By:    /s/ Lewis N. Lester
                           Name:  Lewis N. Lester
                           Title: President
# CE2010021EN.01002101.xml

| 28.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 21/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 21/21

---

Thursday 4 December 2008Maintenance obligations *

P6_TA(2008)0574

European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 December 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (14066/2008 — C6-0384/2008 — 2005/0259(CNS))

2010/C 21 E/08

(Consultation procedure — renewed consultation)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the text of the Council draft (14066/2008),

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2005)0649),

having regard to its position of 13 December 2007 (1),

1

having regard to Articles 61(c) and 67(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0384/2008),

having regard to Rules 51 and 55(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0456/2008),

| 1. | Approves the Council text; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Council text;

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the text submitted for consultation substantially; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the text submitted for consultation substantially;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2007)0620.

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14654]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 1611

Privacy Act Regulations

CFR Correction

0
In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 900 to 1899, 
revised as of July 1, 2014, on page 257, in Sec.  1611.3, in paragraph 
(b)(3), the address ``1801 L Street NW.'' is corrected to read ``131 M 
Street NE.''.

[FR Doc. 2015-14654 Filed 6-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
§ 109.337 Fireman's outfit. The master or person in charge shall insure that— ( a ) At least 2 persons who are trained in the use of the fireman's outfit are on board at all times; and
( b ) Each fireman's outfit and its spare equipment is stowed in a separate and accessible location.
( c ) A fireman's outfit is not used for any purpose other than fire fighting except as provided in § 108.703.
§ 117.204 Survival craft—vessels operating on coastwise routes. ( a ) Each vessel with overnight accommodations certificated to operate on a coastwise route must be provided with inflatable buoyant apparatus of an aggregate capacity that will accommodate at least 100% of the total number of overnight persons permitted on board.
( b ) Where the total number of persons allowed on the COI exceeds the total number of overnight persons allowed, the following survival craft requirements apply when not engaged in an overnight voyage: ( 1 ) Except as allowed by paragraph (d) of this section, if operated in cold water, be provided with inflatable buoyant apparatus of an aggregate capacity that will accommodate at least 67% of the total number of persons permitted on board; or
( 2 ) Except as allowed by paragraph (d) of this section, if operated in warm water, be provided with life floats of an aggregate capacity that will accommodate at least 100% of the total number of persons permitted on board.
( c ) Each vessel without overnight accommodations certificated to operate on a coastwise route, must: ( 1 ) Except as allowed by paragraph (d) of this section, if operated in cold water, be provided with inflatable buoyant apparatus of an aggregate capacity that will accommodate at least 67% of the total number of persons permitted on board; or
( 2 ) Except as allowed by paragraph (d) of this section, if operated in warm water, be provided with life floats of an aggregate capacity that will accommodate at least 100% of the total number of persons permitted on board.
( d ) Each vessel certificated to operate on a coastwise route within three miles of land, and equipped with an FCC type accepted Category 1 406 MHz EPIRB installed to float free and automatically activate, may be provided with life floats of an aggregate capacity that will accommodate at least 50% of the total number of persons permitted on board.
# C_2008173EN.01000601.xml

| 8.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/6

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 173/05)

| Reference number of the aid | XT 44/08 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Schulungsprogramm des Deutschen Weinfonds/Deutschen Weininstituts |
| Legal basis | Schulungsprogramm des Deutschen Weinfonds/Deutschen Weininstituts auf Grundlage des § 37 Abs. 1 Weingesetz |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 0,5 million |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Article 4(2)-(7) of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 1.4.2008 |
| Duration | 31.12.2013 |
| Objective | General training
  Specific training |
| Economic sectors | Agriculture, Other services |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Deutscher Weinfonds — Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts/Deutsches Weininstitut GmbH |
| Gutenbergplatz 3-5 |
| D-55116 Mainz |

Reference number of the aid

XT 44/08

Member State

Germany

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Schulungsprogramm des Deutschen Weinfonds/Deutschen Weininstituts

Legal basis

Schulungsprogramm des Deutschen Weinfonds/Deutschen Weininstituts auf Grundlage des § 37 Abs. 1 Weingesetz

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 0,5 million

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Article 4(2)-(7) of the Regulation

Date of implementation

1.4.2008

Duration

31.12.2013

Objective

General training

Specific training

Economic sectors

Agriculture, Other services

Name and address of the granting authority

Deutscher Weinfonds — Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts/Deutsches Weininstitut GmbH

Gutenbergplatz 3-5

D-55116 Mainz

---
GEORGE STALLWORTH,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-2950

Opinion filed September 27, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

George Stallworth, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 

2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

This Court reserves jurisdiction to consider the imposition of sanctions.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 111.33-5 Installation. Each semiconductor converter system must meet the installation requirements, as appropriate, of— ( a ) Sections 4.31.19.2, 4.31.19.7, and 4.31.19.8 of IEEE 45.2-2011 (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter); or
( b ) IEC 60092-304:1980 (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).
[USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16361, Mar. 18, 2023]
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.415 Toxic gas analyzers. When Table 148.10 of this part associates a material with a reference to a paragraph in this section, each vessel transporting the material, other than an unmanned barge, must have on board a gas analyzer appropriate for the toxic gas listed in that paragraph. At least two members of the crew must be knowledgeable in the use of the equipment. The equipment must be maintained in a condition ready for use and calibrated according to the instructions of its manufacturer. The atmosphere in the cargo hold and adjacent spaces must be tested before a person is allowed to enter these spaces. If toxic gases are detected, the space must be ventilated and retested before entry. The toxic gases for which the requirements of this section must be met are: ( a ) Arsine;
( b ) Carbon monoxide;
( c ) Hydrogen cyanide;
( d ) Hydrogen sulfide;
( e ) Phosphine; and
( f ) Sulfur dioxide.