However, following the publication of the final rule, HUD found that for projects subject to a restructuring plan, the subsequent renewal authority requested, for the duration of the 30-year use agreement under Section 514 (e) (6) of MAHRA, Section 515 (b) of MAHRA and not section 524, and after the expiry of the contract of use and the approval of the owner , and obtains a subsequent renewal contract in accordance with Section 524, point a). ( b) (1) or (e) (2) of MAHRA, a discretionary rent adjustment would be available in place of an OCAF in accordance with Section 524, paragraph 1. This determination is reflected in the mark-to-market renewal contracts concluded in the year following the publication of the Final Start Printed Page 43167, which provide for annual rent adjustments by an OCAF, without a provision authorizing a budget-based rent adjustment instead of an OCAF. In addition, mark-to-market renewal contracts expressly state that no rent adjustment other than an OCAF is permitted. Consistent with these findings, HUD`s policy has not been to approve an application for rent adjustment, while a project is subject to a restructuring plan, when it appears to be authorized by section 401.412 (b) of the final rule. As stated in section 515 (a) of MAHRA, which it implements, item 401.554 of the final rule provides that HUD will propose a contract under Section 8.8, ”the extension or extension,” as provided for in a project restructuring plan. Since programmatic practice is to offer renewal rather than extend it, HUD proposes to revise the language accordingly. In addition, HUD proposes to remove a sentence stapled to section 401.554, indicating that there could be more than one renewal authority for projects subject to a restructuring plan. With respect to the implementation of Section 524 (c) (1) mahRA, which HUD subsequently found relevant to projects under a restructuring plan, the final rule specifies the final rule with respect to . 401.412, ”We . . . added a new paragraph (b) explaining the availability of budget adjustments at the request of the owner, subject to the secretary`s agreement, as in the pub.
L. 106-74″ (addition). Although the amended Section 524 is not the subject of a restructuring project application, HUD considered Section 524 to be a subsequent renewal authority for projects subject to a restructuring plan and therefore considered that a discrete rent adjustment would have been available during the subsequent extension period under Section 524 A. (b) (1). , or (e) (2) MAHRA. In this context, the preamble to the final rule states: ”A restructuring plan provides for adjustments using the OCAF in this section, but this section will not prevent HUD from offering [later] extensions with a rent level higher than that resulting from the OCAF`s rent adjustments, if authorized by law” (note added) (65 FR 15461). In the preamble to the final rule, it is added: ”We have added language . . . HUD .
. . must offer management contracts 8, in accordance with a restructuring plan, subject to . . . renewal authority available at the time each contract expires. Section 524 of MAHRA (modified by the pub.