Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Notices 10045 

for a PHA to appeal its troubled 

designation. The proposed PHAS 

interim rule at § 902.69 provides the 

opportunity for a PHA to appeal its 

troubled designation, petition for the 

removal of troubled designation, or 

appeal its score. 

The proposed PHAS interim rule at 

§ 902.68 affords PHAs the opportunity 

to request a technical review of its 

physical condition inspection or, at 

§ 902.24, a database adjustment if 

certain conditions are present. A 

technical review of the physical 

condition inspection may be requested 

if a PHA believes that an objectively 

verifiable and material error(s) occurred 

in the inspection of an individual 

property. A database adjustment may be 

requested by a PHA due to facts and 

circumstances affecting a project which 

are not reflected in the physical 

condition inspection or which are 

reflected inappropriately in the physical 

condition inspection. 

HUD uses the data it collects from 

program participants (PHAs) to evaluate 

the four individual PHAS indicators and 

to determine an overall PHAS score for 

each PHA, and to determine the 

physical condition scores for individual 

projects. The overall PHAS score 

determines if a PHA’s performance is 

high, standard, substandard or troubled, 

including Capital Fund Program 

troubled. PHAs may request an appeal 

of its overall PHAS score, or a technical 

review or database adjustment of their 

physical condition score. These requests 

are submitted by letter from the PHA to 

HUD, and the letter includes 

documentation to justify the request. 

HUD reviews the request and 

accompanying documentation, and 

makes a determination as to whether to 

grant or deny the request based on what 

the PHA has submitted. These 

information collections are described in 

the proposed PHAS interim rule, with 

thorough definitions of each request. 

The granting of an appeal, technical 

review or database adjustment may 

change a PHA’s designation, usually to 

a higher level. 

Agency form numbers: None. 

Members of affected public: Public 

housing agencies. 

Estimation of the total number of 

hours needed to prepare the information 

collection including number of 

respondents: 1,700 respondents 

annually with 1 response per 

respondent. Average time per response 

for each form is 5.2 hours and total 

annual burden hours is 8,840. 

Status of the proposed information 

collection: Revision of a currently 

approved collection. 

Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 

as amended. 

Dated: November 22, 2010. 

Merrie Nichols-Dixon, 

Acting Deputy, Assistant Secretary for Office 

of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4030 Filed 2–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5480–N–13] 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: Comment Request; ‘‘eLogic 

Model’’ Grant Performance Report 

Standard 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection. 

SUMMARY: The proposed information 

collection requirement described below 

has been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. The Department is 

soliciting public comments on the 

subject proposal. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: April 25, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposal. Comments should refer to 

the proposal by name and/or OMB 

Control Number {2535–0114} and 

should be sent to: Barbara Dorf, 

Director, Office of Departmental Grants 

Management and Oversight, Department 

or Housing and Urban Development, 

451 7th Street, SW., Room 3156, 

Washington, DC 20410 or e-mail at 

Barbara.Dorf@hud.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Collette Pollard, Reports Management 

Officer, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, 

Southwest, Washington, DC 20410; 

e-mail Collete.Pollard@HUD.gov; or 

Dorthera Yorkshire, Senior Program 

Analyst Office of Departmental Grants 

Management and Oversight at 

Dorthera.Yorkshire@hud.gov for copies 

of the proposed forms and other 

available information. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department will submit the proposed 

information collection to OMB for 

review, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35, as amended). 

This Notice is soliciting comments 

from members of the public and 

affecting agencies concerning the 

proposed collection of information to: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) Evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (3) Enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) Minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond; including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

This Notice also lists the following 

information: 

Title of Proposal: ’’eLogic Model’’ 

Grant Performance Report Standard’’. 

OMB Approval Number: 2535–0114. 

Form Number: The agency form 

number is HUD 96010, each program 

utilizing the Logic Model will have the 

same form number and the Program 

Name following the number to associate 

the logic model to the specific program. 

Description of the need for the 

information and proposed use: The 

revised form, which is an attachment to 

HUD Federal Financial Assistance 

applications. HUD uses standardized 

points for evaluating Logic Models 

submitted under Rating Factor 5, 

Achieving Results and Program 

Evaluation for programs using the Logic 

Model. The decision to standardize the 

basis for rating the Logic Model resulted 

from review of submitted Logic Models 

and rating factor narrative statements, 

and training sessions held with HUD 

staff and the applicant community. By 

standardizing the rating for the Logic 

Model submission, HUD believes that a 

greater understanding will be gained on 

the use and relationship of the Logic 

Model to information submitted as part 

of the Rating Factors for award. The 

standardization of the Logic Model 

submission in Rating Factor 5 highlights 

the relationship between the narratives 

produced in response to the factors for 

award, stated outputs and outcomes, 

and discrepancies or gaps that have 

been found to exist in submitted Logic 

Models. HUD also believes that the 

standardization will strengthen the use 

of the Logic Model as a management 

and evaluation tool. The Logic Model is 

a tool that integrates program operations 

and program accountability. It links 

program operations (mission, need, 

intervention, projected results, and 

actual results), and program 

accountability (measurement tool, data 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

10046 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Notices 

source, and frequency of data collection 

and reporting, including personnel 

assigned to function). Applicants/ 

grantees should use it to support 

program planning, monitoring, 

evaluation, and other management 

function HUD uses the Logic Model and 

its electronic version, the eLogic 

Model®, to capture an executive 

summary of the application submission 

in data format, which HUD uses to 

evaluate the attainment of stated 

applicant goals and anticipated results. 

HUD also uses the data for policy 

formulation. HUD encourages 

applicants and those selected for award 

to use the Logic Model data to monitor 

and evaluate their own progress and 

effectiveness in meeting stated goals and 

achieving results consistent with the 

program purpose. To further this 

objective, and in response to grantee 

requests, the HUD eLogic Model®

contains a column that allows the 

grantee to input results achieved for the 

reporting period, as well as Year-ToDate (YTD) in the reporting year tab for 

each year of the award. This added field 

allows the grantee to review 

performance each reporting period and 

for each year of the award ‘‘at a glance,’’ 

and without having to construct a 

report. The HUD eLogic Model® also 

has fields to capture the location (city, 

state, and nine digit Zip Code) where 

the majority of the activities take place, 

as well as a drop-down menu to identify 

the reporting period start and end date. 

In FY2010, HUD added a drop down 

field for the reporting period, as follows: 

Yr1Qtr1; Yr1Qtr2; Yr1Qtr3; Yr1Qtr4; 

Yr2Qtr5; Yr2Qtr6; Yr2Qtr7; Yr2Qtr8; 

Yr3Qtr9; Yr3Qtr10; Yr3Qtr11; Yr3Qtr12; 

and Final Report. The sequential 

numbering of the quarters was 

determined necessary because each start 

and end date within a program may vary 

by grantee, so it was difficult to 

determine the actual report that was 

sent in the order that they were received 

by HUD. If a grantee only reports semi 

annually, it would select Yr1 Quarter 2 

as its first reporting period and Yr1 

Quarter 4 as its second semi-annual 

reporting period. If a grantee is only 

required to report annually, it would 

select Yr1Qtr4 to denote its reporting 

period. Final reports would be denoted 

as a final report. Each Program NOFA 

will specify the reporting requirement 

with instructions, and whether a 

separate final report is required in 

addition to any annual report. 

Applicants and grantees must follow the 

following requirements in completing 

and naming their Logic Model files: 

The applicant name in the Logic 

Model must match the applicant name 

in box 8a of the SF424, Application for 

Federal Financial Assistance Form. If an 

applicant is submitting more than one 

application for funding, the project 

name must be completed and must be 

different for each funding request made. 

DO NOT use special characters (i.e., #, 

%, /, etc.) in a file name. 

DO NOT include spaces in the file 

name. Limit file names to not more than 

50 characters (HUD strongly 

recommends not more than 32 

characters). 

DO NOT convert Word files or Excel 

files into PDF format. Converting to PDF 

format increases file size and will make 

it more difficult to upload the 

application and does not allow HUD to 

enter data from the Excel files into a 

database. 

DO NOT save your logic model in 

.xlsm format. If necessary save as an 

Excel 97–2003 .xls format. Using the 

.xlsm format can result in a Grants.gov 

virus detect error. In addition, HUD 

cannot accept and open .xlsm files. 

File names with spaces and special 

characters in the file name or which 

contain more than 50 characters present 

problems for HUD entering the data 

electronically into our database. 

Applications that do not follow the 

naming conventions will have their 

applications rejected by the Grants.gov 

website, as the file names that violate 

these requirements are viewed as 

containing viruses by the system. 

Grantees who submit reports that do not 

meet the file-naming requirements or do 

not complete mandatory data fields will 

have their Logic Model reports returned 

to them for correction of these issues. 

For the file name of the eLogic 

Model®, please follow the file naming 

conventions and requirements above. 

After award, the file name for Logic 

Model must be the award number and 

reporting period. For detailed 

instructions, please see the instructions 

under Tab 1 of the program eLogic 

Model®, form HUD96010. The reporting 

periods will be specified in each of the 

program NOFAs. 

HUD’s goal is to improve the labeling 

of the files to improve matching 

submitted application logic models and 

report Logic Models, thereby improving 

HUD’s ability to place the information 

in a database and measure the 

effectiveness of HUD programs. 

Factor 5, Achieving Results and 

Program Evaluation, will consist of a 

minimum of 10 points for the Logic 

Model submission. The matrix provided 

in Appendix B of this General Section 

identifies how the Logic Model will be 

rated in a standardized way across 

program areas using the Logic Model. 

Training on the rating factor will be 

provided via satellite broadcast and 

archived on HUD’s website for repeat 

viewing. Individual Program NOFAs 

may specify means other than the Logic 

Model for capturing performance data 

for evaluation purposes. Applicants 

should carefully read the Program 

NOFA to determine requirements and 

the Factors for Award which constitutes 

the basis for scoring each program 

NOFA. 

Additional details about the five 

rating factors and the maximum points 

for each factor are provided in 

individual program NOFAs. For a 

specific funding opportunity, HUD may 

modify these factors to take into account 

explicit program needs or statutory or 

regulatory limitations. Applicants 

should carefully read the factors for 

award as described in the program 

NOFA to which they are responding. 

e. Additional Criteria: Past 

Performance. In evaluating applications 

for funding, HUD will take into account 

an applicant’s past performance in 

managing funds, including, but not 

limited to, the ability to account for 

funds appropriately; timely use of funds 

received either from HUD or other 

Federal, State, or local programs; timely 

submission and quality of reports to 

HUD; meeting program requirements; 

meeting performance targets as 

established in Logic Models approved as 

part of the grant agreement; timelines 

for completion of activities and receipt 

of promised matching or leveraged 

funds; and the number of persons to be 

served or targeted for assistance. HUD 

may consider information available 

from HUD’s records; the name check 

review; public sources such as 

newspapers; Inspector General or 

Government Accountability Office 

reports or findings; or hotline or other 

complaints that have been proven to 

have merit. 

In evaluating past performance, HUD 

may elect to deduct points from the 

rating score or establish threshold levels 

as specified under the Factors for Award 

in the individual program NOFAs. Each 

program NOFA will specify how past 

performance will be rated. 

Agency form numbers, if applicable: 

HUD–96010. 

Estimation of the total number of 

hours needed to prepare the information 

collection including number of 

respondents, frequency of response, and 

hours of response: An estimation of the 

total time needed to complete the form 

is less than ten minutes; number of 

respondents is 11,000; frequency of 

response is on the occasion of 

application submission. The total report 

burden is 1100 hours. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Notices 10047 

Status of the proposed information 

collection: New collection of 

information for HUD’s discretionary 

programs. 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. 

Dated: February 16, 2011. 

Colette Pollard, 

Departmental Reports Management Officer, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4032 Filed 2–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5094–N–04] 

Changes to the Public Housing 

Assessment System (PHAS): Financial 

Condition Scoring Notice 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice provides 

additional information to public 

housing agencies (PHAs) and members 

of the public about HUD’s process for 

issuing scores under the financial 

condition indicator of the Public 

Housing Assessment System (PHAS). 

This notice includes threshold values 

and associated scores for each financial 

subindicator derived from generally 

accepted accounting principles (GAAP)- 

based financial information. This notice 

updates and clarifies the audit flags and 

tier classification chart. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 25, 2011. 

Comment Due Date: April 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments on this 

notice to the Regulations Division, 

Office of General Counsel, Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

Communications must refer to the above 

docket number and title. There are two 

methods for submitting public 

comments. All submissions must refer 

to the above docket number and title. 

1. Submission of Comments by Mail. 

Comments may be submitted by mail to 

the Regulations Division, Office of 

General Counsel, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

7th Street, SW., Room 10276, 

Washington, DC 20410–0500. 

2. Electronic Submission of 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments electronically through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. HUD 

strongly encourages commenters to 

submit comments electronically. 

Electronic submission of comments 

allows the commenter maximum time to 

prepare and submit a comment, ensures 

timely receipt by HUD, and enables 

HUD to make them immediately 

available to the public. Comments 

submitted electronically through the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site can 

be viewed by other commenters and 

interested members of the public. 

Commenters should follow the 

instructions provided on that site to 

submit comments electronically. 

Note: To receive consideration as public 

comments, comments must be submitted 

through one of the two methods specified 

above. Again, all submissions must refer to 

the docket number and title of the rule. 

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile 

(FAX) comments are not acceptable. 

Public Inspection of Public 

Comments. All properly submitted 

comments and communications 

submitted to HUD will be available for 

public inspection and copying between 

8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above 

address. Due to security measures at the 

HUD Headquarters building, an advance 

appointment to review the public 

comments must be scheduled by calling 

the Regulations Division at 202–402– 

3055 (this is not a toll-free number). 

Individuals with speech or hearing 

impairments may access this number 

via TTY by calling the Federal 

Information Relay Service, toll-free, at 

800–877–8339. Copies of all comments 

submitted are available for inspection 

and downloading at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claudia Yarus, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, Office of 

Public and Indian Housing, Real Estate 

Assessment Center (REAC), 550 12th 

Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 

20410 at 202–475–8830 (this is not a 

toll-free number). Persons with hearing 

or speech impairments may access this 

number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Information Relay Service 

at 800–877–8339. Additional 

information is available from the REAC 

Internet site at http://www.hud.gov/ 

offices/reac/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Purpose of This Notice 

The purpose of this notice is to 

provide information about the scoring 

process for PHAS indicator #2, financial 

condition, under the PHAS. The 

purpose of the financial condition 

indicator is to measure the financial 

condition of each public housing 

project. 

II. Background 

A. Financial Condition Indicator 

Regulatory Background 

To reflect a shift from a PHA-wide 

based assessment to one that is property 

based, HUD is revising the Financial 

Assessment Sub-System for public 

housing (FASS–PH) Financial Data 

Schedule (FDS) and financial condition 

scoring process. Project-based 

management is defined in 24 CFR 

990.115 as ‘‘the provision of property 

management services that is tailored to 

the unique needs of each property.’’ 

PHAs must also implement projectbased budgeting and project-based 

accounting, which are essential 

components of asset management. 

Project-based accounting is critical to a 

property-based assessment of financial 

condition, because it mandates the 

submission of property-level financial 

data. Accordingly, PHAs will now be 

scored at a property level, using the 

already designated projects as the basis 

for assessment. 

HUD will assess the financial 

condition of projects. Project financial 

performance will be scored and 

averaged across the PHA, weighted 

according to unit count. The projects 

within a PHA will be evaluated and 

scored based on the project’s 

performance relative to industry 

standards. 

B. Comparable Scoring Systems 

The financial condition subindicators 

are not unique to public housing. The 

subindicators included in the financial 

condition indicator scoring process are 

common measurements used 

throughout the multifamily industry to 

rank properties and identify the 

properties that require further attention. 

III. Transition to Asset Management 

and Frequency of Financial Condition 

Submissions 

The number of units in a PHA’s LowRent program and the PHAS designation 

for small PHAs will determine the 

frequency of financial condition 

submissions during and after the 

transition to asset management. PHAs 

with fewer than 250 public housing 

units will receive a PHAS assessment, 

based on its PHAS designation, as 

follows: 

(1) A small PHA that is a high 

performer will receive a PHAS 

assessment every 3 years; 

(2) A small PHA that is a standard or 

substandard performer will receive a 

PHAS assessment every other year; and 

(3) All other small PHAs will receive 

a PHAS assessment every year, 

including a PHA that is designated as 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES