alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
·~ 

--

~-;·-~--~? 

--,, REF ID: A487614 ~...---..,_ 

f'flf 

.. ~-·~ ... 

From: ,Washington (Nomura) 

To: . Tokyo 

May a>, 1941 

Purple (CA) 

#327 

INTEIJ..IGENCE: 

Though I do not lmow which ones, I have 

discovered that the United States is reading some of our 

codes. 

As for how I got the intelligence, I will 

inform you b1' courier or another safe way. 

iJther cpy is classified SECRET only 

Carbon contained these entries: 

Found in Minckler safe 

s. 

!Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-08-2013 pursuant to E. 0. 1352§ 

.~. 

l ~-~ 17424 - - -'Ihis is not thre 17424 in SIS Bulletin file. F. - 'I I , ' , 

Trans. 5/21/41 (7) 

t>~~~CA)~fd 

5. - - - - -------------- - - --
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00456-CR

Derrick Lamont White

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1417157D)

November 17, 2016

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth______________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130563 & (46) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 130563 

 COA: 256192 
 Wayne CC: 03-013613-01

ARTHUR SUMERLIN, III,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

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

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand is DENIED. 

p0724 

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. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

710 

KA 11-00940 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JEFFREY L. NEWTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

EASTON THOMPSON KASPEREK SHIFFRIN LLP, ROCHESTER (DONALD M. THOMPSON

OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL),

FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Daniel J. Doyle, J.), rendered March 7, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree

and gang assault in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law 

§ 125.20 [1]) and gang assault in the first degree (§ 120.07). 

Contrary to defendant’s contention, Supreme Court properly denied his

Batson challenge with respect to prospective juror number two. 

Defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden of establishing that

the prosecutor exercised the peremptory challenge in a discriminatory

manner (see generally People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 421). Defendant’s

assertion that “there wasn’t anything obvious . . . in her responses

that would seem to make her favorable to the defense,” “standing

alone, [is] generally insufficient to establish a prima facie case of

discrimination” (People v MacShane, 11 NY3d 841, 842; see People v

May, 125 AD3d 1465, 1466, lv denied 25 NY3d 1204). 

We reject defendant’s contention that the court abused its

discretion in discharging a sworn juror based upon a medical emergency

involving the juror’s grandmother (see People v Barkley, 66 AD3d 1432,

1432, lv denied 13 NY3d 905), after having made the requisite

“reasonably thorough inquiry” in determining that the juror was

unavailable for continued service (CPL 270.35 [2] [a]).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, we conclude that the

court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the prejudicial

effect of the jury learning that defendant was incarcerated was
-2- 710 

KA 11-00940 

outweighed by the probative value of the People’s evidence of

defendant’s statements in a recorded jailhouse telephone conversation

(see generally People v Jenkins, 88 NY2d 948, 950). We further

conclude that, when viewed in light of the elements of the crimes as

charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), the

verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally

People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Finally, the sentence is not

unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: November 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SCOTT WESLEY WILLIAMS; MICHAELE ANNA WILLIAMS,

Petitioners

- Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

- Appellee. No. 15

- 71505

Tax Ct. No. 4640

- 12

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court

Submitted May 24, 2019 **

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Scott Wesley Williams and Michaele Anna Williams appeal pro se the Tax
Court’s denial of their petition for redetermination of a federal income tax
deficiency for 2007. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We

review de novo the Tax Court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its factual

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 29 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

findings. Meruelo v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue , 691 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir.
2012). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly found that Scott Williams’s airplane

- rental and
telephone

- skills

- training activitie s d id not constitute an “appropriate economic

unit,” and therefore that he did not materially participate in the airplane

- rental
activity for more than 500 hours for purposes of avoiding the rule prohibiting the
deduction of passive activity loss from non

- passive income. See 26 U.S.C.

§ 469(a) (providing that taxpayers generally may not deduct “passive activity loss”
against non

- passive income); id. § 469(c)(1) (“The term ‘passive activity’ means
any activity

— (A) which involves the conduct of any trade of business, and (B) in
which the taxpayer does not materially participate.”); Treas. Reg. § 1.469

- 4(c)(2)
(allowing taxpayers to group activities for purposes of applying this rule if the

activities constitute “an appropriate economic unit”); id. § 1.469

- 5T(a)(1) (a
taxpayer materially participates in an activity if
, inter alia
, the taxpayer
“participate s in the activity for more than 500 hours” during the taxable year).

The Tax Court properly found that the burden of proof on whether the
activities constituted an appropriate economic unit did not shift to the

Commissioner. See 26 U.S.C. § 7491 (a)(1) (“if , in any court proceeding, a
taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to
ascertaining the liability of the taxpayer for any tax imposed by subtitle A or B, the3

Secretary shall have the burden of proof with respect to such issue”); Davis v.
Comm’r of Internal Revenue , 394 F.3d 1294, 1298 n.2 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ T he
taxpayer bears the burden of showing that he or she meets every condition of a tax
exemption or deduction

. ”).

AFFIRMED.
•. 

IN REPLY 

REFER TO 

REF ID:AlOSO--

WAR DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. W. o. Hershb9rger, 

4113 Walnut Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Dear Hershberger: 

March 15, 1937 

8 

Mr. Friedman and I have been working on a means of securing 

secrecy, primarily in voice connnunication, and, having arrived at a point 

v1here we very much wish to know whether or not there are any "bugs" in the 

idea which would prevent its satisfactory operation, would very much appreciate it if you would give us t-hE! benefit of your experience at the 

Laboratories in connection with your studies on magnetic recordings on 

steel tapes. 

Briefly, the idea is this: To eliminate the expense of filter 

systems and/or complex synchronizing devices, we struck upon the idea of 

mixing the audio frequencies occurring during a small unit of time with 

the audio frequencies which occur during two" or three succeeding units of 

time. To secure the time-delay necessary for this, we propose to record 

magnetically the audio frequencies on a moving steel tape, the movement of 

which through a short distance would give us a delay of the order of 1/50 

second. 

Our first question is thisa If two or more audio frequencies 

are successively impressed on a steel tape, will the resultant be the 

algebraic sum of the individual ordinates at each point7 

Our second question is: Would the fidelity of the impression 

and pick-up from the steel tapes be such that the components of the 

original impressing currents could be sorted out according to the time 

(that is, distance along the tape) they occur, and fed back to cancel 

themselves out of the succeeding units which they are garbling? 

I am enclosing two photostats, the one with the moveable steps 

representing what occurs in the transmitting station (at the top) and 

the receiving station (at the bottom). In the figure in the top the 

~ of frequencies which occur in the first unit of time is represented 

· by A; the ~ of frequencies which occur during the second interval of 

time, by B; those during the third interval of time, by C; etc. 

I hope that the rest of the prints are self-expl_anatory. 

As I said above, Mr. Friedman and I will very much appreciate 

any thoughts you may have on the theoretical feasibility of this scheme. 

Encl. - 2 photostats 

Very truly yours, 

~rrod G. Miller, 

Captain, Signal Corps. 
------------------------------ •.. _ ___, 

REF ID:A105042 

lpt lfemo Ind, 

OCS1a0, WP&T Di?,.,. Juno 30, 19.36 - Toi Research and Devoloprac.nt Division. 

Forwarded. 

Encls. (no change) 

w. s. Rum.bouah, 

Major, Signnl Corps. 

-- --· ----··----------------------------------
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00053-CR

Larry Louis Brim

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1383522D)

November 17, 2016

Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Sue Walker__________________

 Justice Sue Walker
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                        $133,026
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,147
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                35,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,219,049
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,769,764
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,761,367
<LOANS>                                      5,556,168
<ALLOWANCE>                                     74,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,899,273
<DEPOSITS>                                   6,158,984
<SHORT-TERM>                                   656,570
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            271,882
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,106,684
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       252,853
<OTHER-SE>                                     452,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               9,899,273
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                118,591
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               69,641
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   317
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               188,549
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              46,858
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,171
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          102,378
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,800
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  56
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 42,419
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,483
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      70,483
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,057
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.37
<LOANS-NON>                                     38,650
<LOANS-PAST>                                     6,431
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                17,580
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                73,280
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    7,030
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,674
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               74,224
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            74,224
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2037 

To amend title XVIII to strengthen ambulance services furnished under 

part B of the Medicare program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 10, 2021 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. CASSIDY, 

Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII to strengthen ambulance services 

furnished under part B of the Medicare program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Protecting Access to Ground Ambulance Medical Serv6 ices Act of 2021’’. 

7 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for 

8 this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

TITLE I—PROTECT ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY AMBULANCE CARE 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2037 IS

Sec. 101. Protecting patient access to ground ambulance services. 

TITLE II—PROTECT ACCESS TO GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICES 

IN RURAL AMERICA 

Sec. 201. Protecting access to ambulance services in rural and low population 

density areas. 

1 TITLE I—PROTECT ACCESS TO 

2 HIGH QUALITY AMBULANCE 

3 CARE 

4 SEC. 101. PROTECTING PATIENT ACCESS TO GROUND AM5 BULANCE SERVICES. 

6 Section 1834(l) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

7 1395m(l)) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (12)(A), by striking ‘‘2023’’ 

9 and inserting ‘‘2028’’; and 

10 (2) in paragraph (13)(A), by striking ‘‘2023’’ 

11 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘2028’’ in each 

12 such place. 

13 TITLE II—PROTECT ACCESS TO 

14 GROUND AMBULANCE SERV15 ICES IN RURAL AMERICA 

16 SEC. 201. PROTECTING ACCESS TO AMBULANCE SERVICES 

17 IN RURAL AND LOW POPULATION DENSITY 

18 AREAS. 

19 Section 1834(l)(12) of the Social Security Act (42 

20 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(12)) is amended by adding at the end 

21 the following new subparagraphs: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2037 IS

1 ‘‘(C) EXCEPTION FOR RURAL AND QUALI2 FIED RURAL AREAS.—The Secretary shall deem 

3 an area designated as a rural or qualified rural 

4 area under this paragraph that would otherwise 

5 no longer receive such designation to retain its 

6 previous designated status if there are 1,000 or 

7 fewer individuals per square mile in the area. 

8 ‘‘(D) RIGHT TO APPEAL RURAL AREAS

9 AND QUALIFIED RURAL AREAS.—The Secretary 

10 shall establish an administrative appeals proc11 ess to allow ambulance services providers and 

12 suppliers to seek reconsideration of a change in 

13 a ZIP code’s status as a rural or qualified rural 

14 area during the first 12 months after the Sec15 retary finalizes a change in the designation 

16 made under this paragraph.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
, 

- --- .,. 

I 

- -·'.' .. -· 

.~ .- ··.-:,_.A~-

--

--=-...--=.. ~ ~ - .::-;..: ·~ -3._::..;.'I.-"";""....;;.- ~-"--;:- :,,:; - .,.:.-"~---~-.. ' .. 

llr. A. A.~ 

~ '=tl.l 

Ut'ltwaatv or Qd.ee..,~ 

at~ 'J1, ntim1' 

Ila' ~ • AlMf't I 

~I 6/~/f-1 

-;;? 8 ~ ' :s-..?. 

't'M lldtOfll!l.1 ~~1'1 %¥M1 hintU'ic MvUGr;r lor;ird. (JIJA.~_11), a 

Wa" w!tll ~ or -.""e:ra.nea .t t01'th ta t&:e f.QelC$1.i:tC to ~i. letar, 

WS&il4 lU.. t'> w ta• fQf1ti<m to •ll \1lNX'1 ~ 802.entillta *tlC";i _. 

~lt ttN ,.n .. ti. ..n1.ec& or t.. ~'!al ~!lte.tlor: in attera 

flt ~st. to the 'ltmd _,, ot g:rett ~ 1n ~ -~iCQ\l def'~· 

At ft# lM"G ~, Jli,aS.Q ~to dtabl19'h tbr'.-"' J*Ml• ~~ 

• ..,etltt11 tot?» n.u. '11 84lw3Lt~, •l~"J'Q'':s''tl""liea.tktco, a:!). •lo<etl'Ooic•· It. !.a ~e~ tm.t toral =-tUQI at~ ..,is lloe ~ latft ... 

.,_t a.1:lid. 1!M\t1 .. a ~l rule, ftm'3). ~·a ba cttll.ea ~ to Wlet 

tllO ltt/IGl..7 Gtl am 1.tdi~l. ~tant but. ud. theu only• thetr 0tin 

iu. u4 e-®"'111~ vUl per:nd.~. e.. pro'bl.,. 1.rrl'olwd. can eutN.11 wr:i 

cm~ -u. ~lW ~ ~~ 14nra . 

.. ~n d tbt 1es;r.,·~lve Ji8.$l• ..-a all •i!IJers ot EAS.«.I. 

ftiltll tbe 'IP:Ml• an cp:n-n.ttes M ~ ~ 11'111 'fl'Gll"k ~their daair• 

~ ~ vtll ~ to tbo JMiar4. 

~ """ 'tleen ~te~ lfl llSASAB tw-~ • ti\a Nat!te~ttea 

hiM.11 lM Qg1ft'C:) cl: wbtclt 1a !\r'. • • I'. ~, c.lit~t~ 1-t.i \-._-w 

fJll '!ecbnOl.oCf I ~J e'4llfCJ!'ll14. 

D' JW VO ~ate1.la ... Utinc \W 1A .. of.,... v.ro'bl"""91 

pl••e ~t W• ~mtton wlth tho .... ..zraru:'tl t-t ~ ... 1'~" 

e1111 1- a l'al ~lwi to tba Mt1o::al .,re=~. 

It J'iGll to DOt-. tee ftq\11~ ~ ftt.cU1\iea (~~t=­

Uc -.ra or ita ~-..lent) tor tne 'bfial.ofr.:t"e, »1-H ~ tt ht t.J.ie 

4'iiiible .... 1. tac~ ~Cl. 

l laelt 

mA Ice· U·l (CGlt.) 

0t•1tm'3 

Bl!:E ATTACHED SHEET :mt DIS'IBIBUrION AND M/R 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 06-19-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e 
, 

v 

Ltr to Dr. A.. A. Albert 

cc; NJ 

c/s 

8/ ASST (Ml-. Friednan) 

SEC 

REF ID:A665Bl 

M/Rs Invitation tor !11!d>er1hip on Mathenatic• Panel or flSASAB. Ill". Albert 

am. beJ.cn;r U.ted individua.18 1 'who rill receive identical lettera, are 

currentl.1 c:le&l'ed. and. 1.Moctrim.ted. BEC concura .. 

14entical letter& Hnt to tho toUOVUigs 

Prof. Dav14 P. Blackwell:- S.¥-1alt o I:::<. 4-5? 

P:rot. A. :a:. Cl.Uf'ord - Sttials 0 I ~ Jt-cr 

Dr. A. M. GJ.eaaon • Seri&li o I ~ S-C 

hot. M!t.riball Ra.ll .. Seri.alt 0 / :<, s-1 

Dr. Claude Shannon ... Serials o I ~ S ..<.,. 

Dr. c. :s. ~kins • Serial: c / ~ 5 3 

-~~-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      16,530,762
<SECURITIES>                                 1,050,563
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,851,752
<ALLOWANCES>                                   225,061
<INVENTORY>                                  2,774,055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,860,536
<PP&E>                                       9,024,396
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,462,525
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,324,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,594,063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       434,102
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,558,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,324,414
<SALES>                                      4,423,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,423,455
<CGS>                                        1,257,632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,394,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (172,362)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                847,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                   345,729
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            501,644
<DISCONTINUED>                               4,988,941
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,490,585
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1612 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1612

  To require the Secretary of Transportation to modify the final rule 
relating to flightcrew member duty and rest requirements for passenger 
  operations of air carriers to apply to all-cargo operations of air 
                   carriers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2015

Mrs. Boxer (for herself, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Markey, Mrs. 
  Shaheen, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. Franken) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Transportation to modify the final rule 
relating to flightcrew member duty and rest requirements for passenger 
  operations of air carriers to apply to all-cargo operations of air 
                   carriers, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Skies Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF FINAL RULE RELATING TO FLIGHTCREW MEMBER DUTY 
              AND REST REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER OPERATIONS TO APPLY 
              TO ALL-CARGO OPERATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall modify the 
final rule specified in subsection (b) so that the flightcrew member 
duty and rest requirements under that rule apply to flightcrew members 
in all-cargo operations conducted by air carriers in the same manner as 
those requirements apply to flightcrew members in passenger operations 
conducted by air carriers.
    (b) Final Rule Specified.--The final rule specified in this 
subsection is the final rule of the Federal Aviation Administration--
            (1) published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2012 
        (77 Fed. Reg. 330); and
            (2) relating to flightcrew member duty and rest 
        requirements.
    (c) Applicability of Rulemaking Requirements.--The requirements of 
section 553 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to the 
modification required by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```