14084 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2013 / Notices 

soliciting comments on the proposed 

information collection request (ICR) that 

is described below. The Department of 

Education is especially interested in 

public comment addressing the 

following issues: (1) Is this collection 

necessary to the proper functions of the 

Department; (2) will this information be 

processed and used in a timely manner; 

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate; 

(4) how might the Department enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (5) how 

might the Department minimize the 

burden of this collection on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of information technology. Please note 

that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

Title of Collection: Direct Loan, FFEL, 

Perkins and TEACH Grant Total and 

Permanent Disability Discharge Forms. 

OMB Control Number: 1845–0065. 

Type of Review: a revision of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: 

Individuals or households. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 254,800. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 127,400. 

Abstract: The Discharge Application: 

Total and Permanent Disability serves as 

the means by which an individual who 

is totally and permanently disabled, as 

defined in section 437(a) of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended, 

applies for discharge of his or her Direct 

Loan, FFEL, or Perkins loan program 

loans, or TEACH Grant service 

obligation. The form collects the 

information that is needed by the U.S. 

Department of Education (the 

Department) to determine the 

individual’s eligibility for discharge 

based on total and permanent disability. 

The Total and Permanent Disability 

Discharge: Post-Discharge Monitoring 

form serves as the means by which an 

individual who has received a total and 

permanent disability discharge provides 

the Department with information about 

his or her annual earnings from 

employment during the 3-year postdischarge monitoring period that begins 

on the date of discharge. The Total and 

Permanent Disability Discharge: 

Applicant Representative Designation 

form serves as the means by which an 

applicant for a total and permanent 

disability discharge may (1) designate a 

representative to act on his or her behalf 

in connection with the applicant’s 

discharge request, (2) change a 

previously designated representative, or 

(3) revoke a previous designation of a 

representative. 

Dated: February 26, 2013. 

Stephanie Valentine, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and 

Records Management Services, Office of 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04883 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID: ED–2013–OESE–0016] 

Request for Information To Gather 

Technical Expertise Pertaining to the 

Identification and Placement of Native 

American Students Who Are English 

Learners in Language Instruction 

Educational Programs 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, U.S. Department 

of Education. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Education (the Department) requests 

information about practices used to 

accurately identify Native American 

students in grades K–12 as English 

learners and to appropriately place 

these students in language instruction 

educational programs (LIEPs). The 

Department makes this request to help 

State educational agencies (SEAs), local 

educational agencies (LEAs), schools, 

tribes, and other interested entities 

identify, share, and implement practices 

for accurately identifying Native 

American students who are English 

learners. 

DATES: Written submissions must be 

received by the Department on or before 

5:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on May 

3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only 

once. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the term ‘‘Identification 

of English Learner Native American 

Students response’’ at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘Are you new to this site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments, address them to 

Supreet Anand, Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education, Attention: 

Native American English Learner RFI, 

U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW., room 3W106, 

Washington, DC 20202–6132. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing in their entirety on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

Submission of Proprietary Information: 

Given the subject matter, some 

comments may include proprietary 

information as it relates to confidential 

commercial information. The Freedom 

of Information Act defines ‘‘confidential 

commercial information’’ as information 

the disclosure of which could 

reasonably be expected to cause 

substantial competitive harm. You may 

wish to request that we not disclose 

what you regard as confidential 

commercial information. 

To assist us in making a 

determination on your request, we 

encourage you to identify in your 

comments any specific information that 

you consider confidential commercial 

information. Please list the information 

by page and paragraph numbers. 

This Request for Information (RFI) is 

issued solely for information and 

planning purposes and is not a request 

for proposals (RFPs) or a promise to 

issue an RFP or a notice inviting 

applications. This RFI does not commit 

the Department to contract for any 

supply or service. Further, the 

Department is not now seeking 

proposals and will not accept 

unsolicited proposals. The Department 

will not pay for any information or 

administrative costs that you may incur 

in responding to this RFI. 

If you do not respond to this RFI, you 

may still apply for future contracts and 

grants. The Department posts RFPs on 

the Federal Business Opportunities Web 

site (www.fbo.gov). The Department 

announces grant competitions in the 

Federal Register (www.gpo.gov/fdsys). It 

is your responsibility to monitor these 

sites to determine whether the 

Department issues an RFP or notice 

inviting applications after considering 

the information received in response to 

this RFI. 

The documents and information 

submitted in response to this RFI 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2013 / Notices 14085 

become the property of the U.S. 

Government and will not be returned. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Supreet Anand, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 3W106, Washington, DC 20202– 

6132. Telephone: 202–401–9795. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Introduction 

The purpose of title III, part A of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) is to 

help ensure that children who are 

limited English proficient (LEP) attain 

English language proficiency and meet 

the same State academic content and 

achievement standards all children are 

expected to meet. One of the President’s 

education goals is for American 

students, including Native American 

students, to be first in the world in 

college completion by 2020. 

At present, however, Native American 

students, compared to non-Native 

American peers, face substantial 

achievement gaps (U.S. Department of 

Education, November 30, 2011). The 

National Caucus of Native American 

State Legislators has described the state 

of education for Native American 

students as ‘‘distressing,’’ pointing to 

academic achievement that is two to 

three years behind that of their white 

peers, high dropout and expulsion rates, 

and low college-completion rates 

(National Caucus of Native American 

State Legislators, 2008). On the 2011 

National Assessment of Educational 

Progress, for example, Native American 

students in grade four performed lower 

in reading than any other group of 

students. Native American students also 

have higher dropout rates than other 

students. According to the 2010 

American Community Survey, the 

percentage of dropouts for ages 16 

through 24 was 14.9 percent for Native 

American students compared with 5.1 

percent for white students and 9.1 

percent for black students (Institute of 

Education Sciences, American 

Community Survey). 

With this RFI the Department is 

taking several steps to collect 

information and gather suggestions to 

help SEAs, LEAs, schools, tribes, and 

other entities identify, share, and 

implement practices for accurately 

identifying Native American students 

who are English learners so that more 

Native American students will be 

college- and career-ready. 

First, we pose a series of questions— 

to which we invite interested members 

of the public to respond—about 

identifying Native American students as 

English learners. 

Second, the Department will host a 

Web dialogue and conference call 

during which external experts and the 

public can engage in further discussion 

on accurate identification of Native 

American English learners. 

Third, the Department will make 

available to the public the information 

collected from this RFI and the Web 

dialogue and conference call, as well as 

other resources identified by external 

experts participating in the Web 

dialogue and conference call. 

2. Definitions 

The following definitions apply to 

this RFI. Statutory definitions are 

indicated by the citation at the end of 

the definition. 

English learner means a student who 

is limited English proficient. 

Limited English proficient (LEP) 

means an individual— 

(A) Who is aged 3 through 21; 

(B) Who is enrolled or preparing to 

enroll in an elementary school or 

secondary school; 

(C)(i) Who was not born in the United 

States or whose native language is a 

language other than English; 

(ii)(I) Who is a Native American or 

Alaska Native or a native resident of the 

outlying areas; and 

(II) Who comes from an environment 

where a language other than English has 

had a significant impact on the 

individual’s level of English language 

proficiency; or 

(iii) Who is migratory, whose native 

language is a language other than 

English, and who comes from an 

environment where a language other 

than English is dominant; and 

(D) Whose difficulties in speaking, 

reading, writing, or understanding the 

English language may be sufficient to 

deny the individual— 

(i) The ability to meet the State’s 

proficient level of achievement on State 

assessments described in section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; 

(ii) The ability to successfully achieve 

in classrooms where the language of 

instruction is English; or 

(iii) The opportunity to participate 

fully in society. (section 9101(25) of the 

ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7801(25)) (emphasis 

added). 

Native American means an individual 

who is Indian, Alaska Native, Native 

Hawaiian, Native American Pacific 

Islander, or a native resident of the 

outlying areas (20 U.S.C. 7801(25) and 

(28); 20 U.S.C. 7491(3); 25 U.S.C. 2902). 

3. Discussion 

In this RFI we specifically inquire 

into practices regarding: (1) Accurate 

initial identification of Native American 

students who are English learners; (2) 

the use of a survey of primary or home 

language other than English (PHLOTE 

survey), as well as other methods, in 

identifying Native American students as 

potential English learners for the 

purpose of placement in a LIEP; (3) the 

use of multi-step processes for 

identifying Native American English 

learners; and (4) defining significant 

impact of a Native American language 

on English language proficiency and 

implementing that definition for 

determination of English language 

proficiency. 

To be eligible as LEP under the ESEA, 

Native American students must not only 

meet the significant impact requirement 

in section 9101(25)(C)(ii) of the ESEA; 

they must also meet the eligibility 

requirement in subparagraph (D) of that 

section. In this RFI we focus on the 

significant impact requirement. 

Accurate identification of English 

learner students is essential to ensure 

that these students receive the services 

necessary to meaningfully access an 

educational program, as required under 

title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(Civil Rights Act), and the services for 

which they are eligible under title III, 

part A of the ESEA. Under the ESEA 

and title VI, Native American students 

who come from an environment in 

which a language other than English has 

had a significant impact on English 

language proficiency may be identified 

as English learners. Even if a Native 

American child does not speak the 

language of his or her tribe, this 

language may still have a significant 

impact on his or her English mastery 

(Leap, 1993). Language impact may 

manifest itself in the way a student 

constructs meaning or applies syntax or 

vocabulary. 

All States at the very least 

recommend, if not require, the use of a 

PHLOTE survey as a first step in 

identifying which students may need to 

take an English language proficiency 

assessment (Bailey and Kelly, 2010). A 

student’s performance on that 

assessment helps determine whether 

she or he is identified as an English 

learner student. Any methods used to 

identify Native American students as 

English learners must be objective, 

valid, and reliable. This includes both 

initial identification as English learners 

and identification after an initial 

identification as non-English learners 

based on academic performance. 

Section 3302(f) of the ESEA provides 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14086 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2013 / Notices 

that a child not be admitted to, or 

excluded from, any federally assisted 

education program on the basis of a 

surname or language-minority status. 

Researchers including Bailey and 

Kelly (2010) have pointed to the great 

variability in the use of PHLOTE 

surveys, both across and within States, 

thereby calling into question the 

validity of the process for identifying 

students as English learners. Some 

States permit local variability in the 

questions included in the PHLOTE 

survey. As PHLOTE surveys are 

individually and locally administered, 

the variability in their administration is 

also great. Families may vary their 

responses to these surveys, indicating in 

one year that a language other than 

English is spoken at home and, in 

another year that it is not. 

Use of PHLOTE surveys with Native 

American students is particularly 

complex due to the current status of 

many Native American languages; e.g., 

the child may not speak the language in 

the home but may have a relative who 

does, or may have grown up in an 

environment in which the syntax, 

rhetorical style, and sociolinguistic 

patterns reflect the significant impact of 

the language. Additionally, among some 

communities, there may be a hesitancy 

to disclose Native American heritage or 

use of a Native American language 

(Weaver, 2001). As a result of these 

factors, Native American students may 

be incorrectly identified as English 

learners or as non-English learners upon 

their entry into school, and educators 

may find at a later point in a child’s 

educational career that she or he has not 

been appropriately placed in a LIEP, or 

in a mainstream classroom with 

supports, as needed. 

Under title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

and related requirements, school 

districts must provide meaningful 

access to educational programs for 

children who are English learners. 

Further, the Office for Civil Rights 

memorandum of May 25, 1970, states 

that: 

Where inability to speak and understand 

the English language excludes national 

origin-minority group children from effective 

participation in the educational program 

offered by a school district, the district must 

take affirmative steps to rectify the language 

deficiency in order to open its instructional 

program to these students. 

‘‘Identification of Discrimination and 

Denial of Services on the Basis of 

National Origin,’’ Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare, 35 FR 11,595 

(July 18, 1970). 

Accurate identification of students as 

English learners is critical to 

compliance with the requirements (1) to 

properly serve and identify English 

learners under title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act and (2) to provide appropriate 

services under title III, part A of the 

ESEA. 

Accordingly, SEAs, LEAs, and schools 

have an interest in, and must share 

responsibility for, developing and 

implementing practices that correctly 

identify all students, including Native 

American students, who are English 

learners. According to the 2010 U.S. 

Census, 5.2 million Americans identify 

themselves as Native American. This is 

an increase of 1.1 million since the 2000 

Census. The 2010 Census also indicates 

that 28 percent of Native Americans 

ages 5 and older speak a language other 

than English at home, as compared to 21 

percent of the population of the Nation 

as a whole. Recent estimates indicate 

that approximately 200 Native 

American languages are ‘‘living 

languages’’; i.e., currently spoken 

(Bright, 2004; Encyclopedia Britannica, 

2012). 

Due to its responsibilities under title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 

title I, part A and title III, part A of the 

ESEA, the Department also has a role in 

supporting development and 

implementation of practices that 

correctly identify students, including 

Native American students, as English 

learners. For these reasons this RFI 

seeks solutions; advice; technical 

information; legal, regulatory, and 

policy approaches; and other 

information from the public about 

practices for accurately identifying 

Native American students who are 

English learners. Through this RFI, the 

Department also seeks to gather 

information and suggestions for SEAs, 

LEAs, and schools on how to address 

these issues. The Department welcomes 

input from SEAs, LEAs, and schools, as 

well as from tribes, researchers, and 

other organizations or individuals. 

In addition, the Department will host 

a Web dialogue and conference call to 

engage external experts in an in-depth 

discussion about these issues. 

Responses to the RFI will be shared 

with the external experts and the public 

to inform the planning for the Web 

dialogue and conference call. Following 

the initial Web dialogue and conference 

call, the Department will decide the 

format and process through which to 

make available the collected public 

input. This format could include an 

online link to all submissions, a 

document summarizing this 

information, a question-and-answer 

document to be posted on the 

Department’s Web site, further 

Webinars, or other methods. 

4. Context for Responses 

4.1 The primary goal of this RFI is 

to gather information that will help 

SEAs and LEAs better understand 

existing practices for identifying Native 

American students who are English 

learners. Because the questions in 

section 4.2 of this notice are only guides 

to helping us better understand the 

issues surrounding identification of 

Native American students who are 

English learners, you do not have to 

respond to any specific question. You 

may provide comments in any 

convenient format. You may also 

provide relevant information that is not 

responsive to a particular question but 

may, nevertheless, be helpful. 

4.2 Questions Regarding the 

Identification of Native American 

Students Who are English Learners 

4.2.1 Practices and Policies. What are 

the practices and policies that SEAs and 

LEAs have implemented for accurate 

initial identification of Native American 

students who are English learners? In 

the case of Native American students 

who may have been misidentified as 

English learners or non-English learners, 

describe the practices and policies that 

SEAs and LEAs have implemented to 

accurately identify these students? In 

the case of Native American students 

with disabilities who may have been 

misidentified as English learners or nonEnglish learners, describe the practices 

and policies that SEAs and LEAs have 

implemented to accurately identify 

these students. 

What guidance have the SEAs and 

LEAs provided regarding accurate 

identification of Native American 

English learners? What evidence exists 

that these are practices that result in 

accurate identification of Native 

American students who are English 

learners? Where have these practices 

been adopted? What are the general 

lessons learned from these adoptions? 

How might these practices be modified 

and improved for use in the future? Are 

there barriers to the adoption of these 

practices at the SEA, LEA, or school 

level? Are any of these practices 

promising? If so, please describe the 

practices, as well as evidence to support 

that they are promising. 

4.2.2 Defining Significant Impact of 

a Language Other Than English on 

English Language Proficiency. To be 

eligible as English learners, Native 

American students must come ‘‘from an 

environment where a language other 

than English has had a significant 

impact on the individual’s level of 

English language proficiency’’ (section 

9101(25) of the ESEA). How does the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 42 / Monday, March 4, 2013 / Notices 14087 

SEA, LEA, or school define and 

implement significant impact of a 

language other than English on English 

language proficiency? What are the 

factors that determine the number of 

generations that are affected by this 

significant impact? How sensitive are 

current English language proficiency 

assessment instruments in measuring 

the significant impact of an 

environment in which a language other 

than English is spoken? What trends or 

patterns have SEAs, LEAs, schools, or 

tribes observed regarding the 

identification of Native American 

students as English learners and the 

progress of these students in acquiring 

English and attaining English 

proficiency? 

4.2.3 PHLOTE Surveys. How do 

SEAs and LEAs frame questions on 

PHLOTE surveys to ascertain that a 

language other than English has had a 

significant impact on a student’s level of 

English language proficiency? What are 

the practices and policies with regard to 

PHLOTE surveys that SEAs and LEAs 

have used to accurately identify Native 

American students who are English 

learners? Are any of these practices 

promising? If so, please describe the 

practices, as well as evidence to support 

that they are promising. 

4.2.4 Multi-Step Process for 

Identifying Native American English 

Learners. Several States have indicated 

that they use a multi-step process to 

identify Native American English 

learners, such as interviewing a parent 

after completion of the PHLOTE survey 

or using a teacher language-observation 

checklist to verify a child’s language 

needs. What are the multi-step 

processes used in the State, LEA, or 

school, including the components, 

timeline, and roles and responsibilities 

of individuals who assist with 

identification of students? 

What evidence or research exists to 

support that a multi-step process is 

effective in accurately identifying 

Native American English learner 

students? What steps or considerations 

in a multi-step process are of value in 

evaluating Native American students 

who are English learners and who have 

or may be suspected of having 

disabilities; e.g., hearing impairment, 

particularly in the younger age range 

when eligibility evaluations for special 

education services are often conducted? 

What are the benefits and drawbacks of 

using a multi-step process? What are the 

roles of parents and community 

members in assisting with identification 

of these students as English learners? 

Are there barriers to the adoption of 

these practices at the SEA, LEA, or 

school level? 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6801–6871. 

Dated: February 26, 2013. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

References 

Bailey, A. L. and Kelly, K. R. (July 2010). The 

Use and Validity of Home Language 

Surveys in State English Language 

Proficiency Assessment Systems: A 

Review and Issues Perspective. 

Bright, W. (2004). American Indian 

Languages. Retrieved from http:// 

anthropology.si.edu/outreach/indbibl/ 

americanindianlanguages.pdf. 

Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare. (July 18, 1970). Identification of 

Discrimination and Denial of Services on 

the Basis of National Origin. 35 FR 

11,595 available at www.ed.gov/ocr/ 

docs/lau1970.html. 

Encyclopedia Britannica. (2012). North 

American Indian Languages. 

Encyclopedia Britannica Online 

Academic Education. Retrieved from 

www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/ 

418877/North-American-Indianlanguages. 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. (November 

2011). NCES 2012459 The Nation’s 

Report Card: Findings in Brief Reading 

and Mathematics 2011. 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. Table A–33–2. 

Number of status dropouts and status 

dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds 

in the noninstitutionalized group 

quarters and household population, by 

nativity and selected characteristics: 

American Community Survey (ACS) 

2010. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ 

programs/coe/tables/table-sde-2.asp. 

Leap, W.L. (1993). American Indian English. 

Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah 

Press. 

National Caucus of Native American State 

Legislators. (2008). Striving to Achieve 

Helping Native American Students 

Succeed. Retrieved from Retrieved from 

www.ncsl.org/print/statetribe/ 

strivingtoachieve.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education. (November 30, 

2011). Tribal Leaders Speak: The State of 

American Indian Education, 2010. 

Retrieved from www.ed.gov/edblogs/ 

whiaiane/files/2012/04/Tribal-LeadersSpeak-2010.pdf. 

United States Census (nd). American Indians 

by the Numbers. Retrieved from 

www.infoplease.com/spot/ 

aihmcensus1.html. 

Weaver, H. N. (2001). Indigenous Identity: 

What is it and Who Really Has it? The 

American Indian Quarterly. Volume 25, 

Number 2, Spring 2001. pp. 240–255. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04819 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

DOE/NSF High Energy Physics 

Advisory Panel: Correction 

AGENCY: Office of Science, Department 

of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting: 

Correction. 

SUMMARY: On February 14, 2013, the 

Department of Energy (DOE) published 

a notice of open meeting for the DOE/ 

NSF High Energy Physics Advisory 

Panel to be held on March 11–12, 2013. 

This document makes a correction to 

that notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Kogut, Executive Secretary; High Energy 

Physics Advisory Panel; U.S. 

Department of Energy; SC–25; 

Germantown Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–1290; 

Telephone: 301–903–1298. 

Corrections 

In the Federal Register of February 

21, 2013, in FR Doc. 2013–04064, on 

page 12043, please make the following 

correction: 

Under DATES, page 12043, third 

column, first paragraph, first line, the 

time has changed. The new time is 9:00 

a.m.–6:00 p.m. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 26, 

2013. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Deputy Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04876 Filed 3–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES