37998 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

The Supplemental Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) Part 71 by further modifying 

the size of the Class D airspace area at 

Santa Monica Municipal Airport, Santa 

Monica, CA, to accommodate IFR 

aircraft departing and arriving at the 

airport. The airspace would be 

increased from a 2.7-mile radius to a 4- 

mile radius of the airport, leaving the 

extension to the northeast the same as 

the NPRM. The geographic coordinates 

of the airport would also be updated to 

coincide with the FAA’s aeronautical 

database. Expanding the current Santa 

Monica Municipal Airport Class D 

airspace would reduce those areas that 

pose a high collision risk to low level 

commercial, general aviation, military 

and helicopter operations. 

Class D airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 5000, of FAA 

Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, 

and effective September 15, 2012, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class D airspace designation 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in this Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. 

Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this proposed rule, 

when promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

Section 106, describes the authority for 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of the airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

modify controlled airspace at Santa 

Monica Municipal Airport, Santa 

Monica, CA. 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9W, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 8, 2012, and 

effective September 15, 2012 is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA D Santa Monica, CA [Modified] 

Santa Monica Municipal Airport, CA 

(Lat. 34°00′57′′ N., long. 118°27′05′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL 

within a 4-mile radius of the Santa Monica 

Municipal Airport and within 1.5 miles each 

side of the 047° bearing of the Santa Monica 

Airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 

4.6 miles northeast of the airport, excluding 

that airspace within the Los Angeles, CA, 

Class D airspace area. This Class D airspace 

area is effective during the specific dates and 

times established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Airport/Facility Directory. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 17, 

2013. 

Clark Desing, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15133 Filed 6–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

25 CFR Part 502 

Electronic One Touch Bingo System 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for Public Comment. 

SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC) is seeking comment 

on a proposed reinterpretation of an 

agency decision regarding the 

classification of server based electronic 

bingo system games that can be played 

utilizing only one touch of a button 

(‘‘one touch bingo’’). The proposed 

reinterpretation is in response to 

questions the NIGC received from the 

regulated community and the public 

about whether one touch bingo is a 

Class II or Class III game. 

DATES: The agency must receive 

comments on or before August 26, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the Commission by any one of the 

following methods, but please note that 

comments sent by electronic mail are 

strongly encouraged. 

D Email comments to: 

reg.review@nigc.gov. 

D Mail comments to: National Indian 

Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street 

NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 

20005. 

D Hand deliver comments to: 1441 L 

Street NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 

20005. 

D Fax comments to: National Indian 

Gaming Commission at 202–632–0045. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Hoenig, National Indian 

Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street 

NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 

20005. Telephone: 202–632–7009; 

email: reg.review@nigc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information 

This notice is directed to the public 

in general and may be of interest to a 

wide range of parties, including, but not 

limited to, tribal gaming operations, 

tribal gaming regulators, and tribal, 

state, and local governments. The NIGC 

is inviting interested parties to 

participate in this proposed 

reinterpretation by submitting such 

written data, views, or arguments as 

they may desire. Comments that provide 

the factual basis supporting the views 

and suggestions presented are 

particularly helpful in developing 

reasoned decisions on the proposal. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37999 

II. Background 

The NIGC has received several 

questions from the regulated community 

regarding the status of one touch bingo 

as a Class II or a Class III game pursuant 

to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

(IGRA). In an electronic one touch bingo 

game, the player inserts money into the 

gaming machine, which is connected to 

other bingo machines in an 

electronically linked bingo system, and 

presses a button once to play a game of 

bingo. This, according prior NIGC Office 

of General Counsel legal opinions and a 

Chairman’s decision on a game-specific 

tribal gaming ordinance, does not 

constitute Class II bingo because it does 

not require players to participate in the 

bingo game by taking further action to 

cover the numbers on the cards. 

In 2008, the Metlakatla Indian 

Community submitted an amendment to 

its tribal gaming ordinance which 

defined Class II gaming as including one 

touch bingo. Specifically, the 

Community set forth the following 

definition: ‘‘Class II gaming includes an 

electronic, computer or other 

technologic aid to the game of bingo 

that, as part of an electronically linked 

bingo system, assists the player by 

covering, without further action by the 

player, numbers or other designations 

on the player’s electronic bingo card(s) 

when the numbers or other designations 

arc electronically determined and 

electronically displayed to the player.’’ 

Chairman Hogen disapproved the 

ordinance amendment based on this 

definition. The Chairman’s decision 

(Metlakatla Decision or Decision) 

provided a detailed explanation of the 

game of bingo and the elements that 

must be present for it to be a Class II 

game. According to the Decision, the 

game of bingo under IGRA has certain 

specific, essential elements, including 

the requirement that a player cover the 

drawn numbers on a bingo card and that 

the game be won by the first person to 

do so. 25 U.S.C 2703(7)(A)(i)(II) and 

(III). The Chairman reasoned that 

inherent in the ‘‘first person covering’’ 

language is an element of competition— 

namely, multiple players competing 

with one another to be the first to cover 

a particular pattern. According to the 

Metlakatla Decision, that competition 

does not exist in a one touch bingo 

game. Without the element of 

competition through player 

participation, then, the Decision 

concluded that one touch bingo does 

not meet the requirements of IGRA’s 

Class II gaming definition. 

The Metlakatla Decision also 

concluded that one touch bingo is not 

a Class II ‘‘game similar to bingo.’’ The 

Decision reasoned that, because one 

touch bingo does not include the 

requisite element of competition, it 

cannot meet the NIGC’s regulatory 

definition of other games similar to 

bingo, which requires the game to 

‘‘permit players to compete against each 

other.’’ Finally, the Decision determined 

that allowing the game system, rather 

than the player, to ‘‘cover’’ the bingo 

card incorporates all characteristics of 

the game of bingo into an electronic 

machine and system, and thereby 

renders one touch bingo a Class III 

electronic facsimile of a game of chance. 

The Commission, however, finds that 

the more reasonable interpretation of 

IGRA’s definition of Class II gaming 

leads the conclusion that one touch 

bingo is a Class II bingo game. The NIGC 

proposes to reinterpret the position 

regarding one touch bingo as set forth in 

the Metlakatla Ordinance disapproval 

and is seeking comment on this 

proposal. The NIGC believes that this 

proposed reinterpretation is more in 

keeping with IGRA’s definition of bingo 

and will bring clarity to the industry. 

III. Summary of Proposed 

Reinterpretation 

Pursuant to IGRA, Class II bingo has 

three elements. First, it must be played 

for prizes, including monetary prizes, 

with cards bearing numbers or other 

designations. Next, the holder of the 

card must cover such numbers or 

designations when objects, similarly 

numbered or designated, are drawn or 

electronically determined. Finally, the 

game is won by the first person covering 

a previously designated arrangement of 

numbers or designations on such cards. 

25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(A)(i)(I)–(III). 

One touch bingo meets IGRA’s 

statutory requirements for a game of 

bingo. The type of one touch game at 

issue here is played for prizes, usually 

money, on a card bearing numbers or 

symbols. It also satisfies IGRA’s second 

element that ‘‘the holder of the card 

covers [the] numbers or designations 

when objects, similarly numbered or 

designated, are drawn or electronically 

determined.’’ In one touch bingo, the 

player covers the numbers or 

designations when drawn. That step is 

achieved by the assistance of a machine 

via the first, and only, touch of the 

button. Finally, the game meets the 

third element. The machine assists the 

player in being the first person to cover 

the designated arrangement, and the 

game is won by the first person to cover 

the pre-designated winning pattern in 

the electronically linked bingo system. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

has held that the 3 elements of IGRA 

and NIGC regulations for bingo are all 

that the law requires for Class II bingo. 

United States v. 103 Elec. Gambling 

Devices, 223 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2000) (‘‘IGRA’s three explicit criteria, 

we hold, constitute the sole legal 

requirements for a game to count as 

class II bingo’’); see also United States 

v. 162 MegaMania Gambling Devices, 

231 F.3d 713, 719 (10th Cir. 2000) 

(finding that Section 2703(7) sets forth 

3 explicit criteria for classification of 

Class II). Further, the court in 103 

Electronic Gambling Devices held that 

‘‘there is nothing in IGRA or its 

implementing regulations . . . that 

requires a player to independently 

locate each called number on each of 

the player’s cards and manually ‘cover’ 

each number independently and 

separately. The statute and the 

implementing regulations merely 

require that a player cover the numbers 

without specifying how they must be 

covered.’’ United States v. 103 Elec. 

Gambling Devices, supra at 18. 

Thus, the previous interpretation’s 

requirement that the cover of the bingo 

card be done manually by the player 

through an additional pressing of a 

button is an additional requirement not 

mandated by the statute. Player 

participation in an electronically linked 

one touch bingo game still exists and 

players are actively and actually 

participating in the game. Whether a 

player presses a button one time or two, 

the player is engaging with the machine, 

participating in the bingo game, and 

competing with fellow players on the 

electronically linked bingo system. 

Likewise, in one touch bingo, the 

possibility that more than one player 

can simultaneously get ‘‘bingo’’ does not 

conflict with IGRA’s requirement that 

the game be won by ‘‘the first person to 

cover.’’ In United States v. 162 

Megamania Gambling Devices, 231 F.3d 

713 (10th Cir. Okla. 2000), the United 

States sought to seize bingo machines 

operated by various Oklahoma tribes for 

Johnson Act violations. The government 

argued, in part, that MegaMania was a 

Class III game ‘‘because a player does 

not have to be the first player to cover 

the designated pattern of numbers to 

win.’’ Id. at 721. 

In response, the 10th Circuit Court of 

Appeals underscored the lower court 

determination that ‘‘nothing in the 

Gaming Act or regulations prohibits 

more than one winner’’ and held that 

‘‘the language in [IGRA] concerning the 

‘first person’ to win is not limited to a 

straight-line game and should not be 

read in isolation from the traditional 

variations of bingo that allow interim 

prizes and simultaneous winners.’’ Id. at 

722. Accordingly, a machine that allows 

two simultaneous bingos in a game may 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38000 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

still be a Class II bingo machine. Id.; See 

also 103 Electronic Gaming Devices, 223 

F.3d at 1098–99 (the 9th Circuit reached 

the same conclusion, holding 

‘‘winning’’ does not necessarily mean 

‘‘vanquishing’’ all other opponents, and 

identifying Congress’ intent to permit 

interim prizes, given that some 

traditional variants of bingo allow 

them.). 

Nor does the fact that a game of bingo 

can be played with one touch of a 

button by itself transform the machines 

into a Class III electronic facsimile of 

the game of bingo. One touch bingo does 

not incorporate all of the characteristics 

of bingo. The machine, for example, 

does not replicate the competitive 

element of bingo. Players still compete 

with other players, not the machine. 

Also, there is an exception for bingo 

in the regulatory definition of electronic 

facsimile, which exempts electronic 

bingo that broadens player participation 

by allowing multiple players to play 

with or against each other rather than 

with or against a machine. As this 

proposed reinterpretation finds that one 

touch bingo meets the statutory 

definition of the game of bingo and does 

not incorporate all the characteristics of 

bingo into the machine, the application 

of the exception is not necessary. 

However, the previous interpretation 

concluded ‘‘as it is applied to bingo, 

. . . the ‘‘except when’’ language of 

502.8 [] require[s] some—even minimal 

participation in the game by the players 

above and beyond the mere pressing of 

a button to begin the game.’’ We find 

this interpretation in error because 

whether a game constitutes bingo or not 

cannot be reduced to the number of 

times a button is pushed. Rather, as set 

out above, we must look to whether the 

statutory elements of the game are met. 

And, as also set out above, we find that 

for one touch bingo they are. One touch 

bingo does incorporate player 

participation in the game beyond the 

pressing of a button. 

Finally, the Commission should give 

consideration to an interpretation of 

bingo that embraces rather than stifles 

technological advancements in gaming. 

The Senate Select Committee on Indian 

Affairs affirmed in its report regarding 

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that 

it ‘‘intends that tribes be given the 

opportunity to take advantage of 

modern methods of conducting Class II 

games and the language regarding 

technology is designed to provide 

maximum flexibility.’’ S. Rep. No. 100– 

446 at p. A–9. In explaining its policy 

toward technology, a key distinction for 

the Committee was that technological 

aids are ‘‘readily distinguishable from 

the use of electronic facsimiles in which 

a single participant plays a game with 

or against a machine rather than with or 

against other players.’’ Id. One touch 

bingo does not change that fundamental 

aspect of bingo. Whether played on a 

one or two touch machine in a linked 

system, the player is still competing 

with other bingo players for a prize. 

For all of the above reasons, the NIGC 

proposes to reinterpret its position on 

one touch bingo, as previously set forth 

in the June 4, 2008 decision 

disapproving the Metlakatla Indian 

Community’s Tribal Gaming Ordinance. 

Dated: June 19, 2013, Washington, DC. 

Daniel J. Little, 

Commissioner. 

Tracie L. Stevens, 

Chairwoman. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15031 Filed 6–21–13; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0129] 

RIN 1625—AA08 

Special Local Regulations; Marine 

Events, Spa Creek and Annapolis 

Harbor; Annapolis, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

withdrawing its proposed rule 

concerning amendments to the regattas 

and marine parades regulations. The 

rulemaking was initiated to establish 

special local regulations during the 

swim segment of the ‘‘TriRock Triathlon 

Series,’’ a marine event to be held on the 

waters of Spa Creek and Annapolis 

Harbor on July 20, 2013. The Coast 

Guard was notified on May 21, 2013, 

that the event had been cancelled. 

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn 

on June 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking is available for 

inspection or copying at the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2013–0129 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice, 

call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, 

Waterways Management Division, 

Sector Baltimore, MD, U.S. Coast Guard; 

telephone 410–576–2674, email 

Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing material in the 

docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 3, 2013, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking entitled 

‘‘Special Local Regulations; Marine 

Events, Spa Creek and Annapolis 

Harbor; Annapolis, MD’’ in the Federal 

Register (78 FR 20066). The rulemaking 

concerned the Coast Guard’s proposal to 

establish temporary special local 

regulations on specified waters of Spa 

Creek and Annapolis Harbor at 

Annapolis, MD, effective from 6 a.m. to 

9:30 a.m. on July 20, 2013. The 

regulated area included all waters of the 

Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor, from 

shoreline to shoreline, bounded by a 

line drawn near the entrance of Spa 

Creek originating at latitude 38°58′40′′ 

N, longitude 076°28′49′′ W, thence south 

to latitude 38°58′32′′ N, longitude 

076°28′45′′ W. The regulated area is 

bounded to the southwest by a line 

drawn from latitude 38°58′34′′ N, 

longitude 076°29′05′′ W thence south to 

latitude 38°58′27′′ N, longitude 

076°28′55′′ W, located at Annapolis, 

MD. The regulations were needed to 

temporarily restrict vessel traffic during 

the event to provide for the safety of 

participants, spectators and other 

transiting vessels. 

Withdrawal 

The Coast Guard is withdrawing this 

rulemaking because the event has been 

cancelled. 

Authority 

We issue this notice of withdrawal 

under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

Dated: June 3, 2013. 

Kevin C. Kiefer, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Baltimore. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15092 Filed 6–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS