(a) Federal-aid funds shall not participate in any cost which is not incurred in conformity with applicable Federal and State law, the regulations in this title, and policies and procedures prescribed by the Administrator. Federal funds shall not be paid on account of any cost incurred prior to authorization by the Administrator to the State highway department to proceed with the project or part thereof involving such cost.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section the Administrator may, upon the request of a State highway department, approve the participation of Federal-aid funds in a previously incurred cost if he finds:
(1) That his approval will not adversely affect the public,
(2) That the State highway department has acted in good faith, and that there has been no willful violation of Federal requirements,
(3) That there has been substantial compliance with all other requirements prescribed by the Administrator, and full compliance with requirements mandated by Federal statute,
(4) That the cost to the United States will not be in excess of the cost which it would have incurred had there been full compliance, and
(5) That the quality of work undertaken has not been impaired.
(c) Any request submitted under paragraph (b) of this section shall be accompanied by a detailed description of the relevant circumstances and facts, and shall explain the necessity for incurring the costs in question.
[38 FR 18368, July 10, 1973]
Notes of Decisions
Sw. Williamson Cnty. Cmty. Ass'n v. Slater, 243 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “According to 23 C.F.R. § 1.9 (a) "[fjederal-aid funds shall not participate in any cost which is not incurred in conformity with applicable Federal and State law.”
Higganbotham v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Oklahoma Transp. Comm'n, 328 F.3d 638 (10th Cir. 2003).
“” 23 C.F.R. § 1.9 (a). In addition, although it is obvious that the bonds proposed to be issued by Oklahoma in the instant case were authorized in part because of the anticipated reimbursement the state can receive under § 122, there is no causal relationship between the…”
Sw. Williamson Cnty. Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rodney E. Slater, 173 F.3d 1033 (6th Cir. 1999).
“Should the state do as the Association fears and apply for federal funds later, the state will gain the funds only if it obtains approval under 23 C.F.R. § 1.9 (b), which allows the Federal Highway Administrator to approve "Federal-aid funds in a previously incurred cost” if a…”
Taubman Realty Grp. Ltd. P'ship v. Mineta, 198 F. Supp. 2d 744 (E.D. Va. 2002).
“, 23 C.F.R. §§ 1.9 ; 1.36. Congress often attaches conditions to such reimbursements (which essentially are federal grants) in order to ensure, for example, that highway projects are carried out in accordance with federal safety standards and in a non-discriminatory manner.”
Save Barton Creek Ass'n v. Fed. High. Admin., 950 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir. 1992).
“§§ 106 , 112(d) (1988); 23 C.F.R. § 1.9 (a) (1991). In actuality, no federal funds have been requested or spent, and no federal approvals have been given.”
Monroe Cnty. Conservation Council, Inc. v. Volpe, 472 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1972).
“It defies reason to think that the federal government should obligate itself to a project which has not yet complied with federal law, and Department of Transportation regulations specifically state that no federal funds are to be paid for any cost incurred not in conformity…”
Citizens Civic Ass'n of Door Cnty. v. Coleman, 417 F. Supp. 975 (W.D. Wis. 1976).
“23 C.F.R. 1.9. It is within the state’s financial capacity to finance the bridge project completely, including the construction of the approaches.”
Monroe Cnty. Conservation Council, Inc. v. Volpe, 472 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1972).
“It defies reason to think that the federal government should obligate itself to a project which has not yet complied with federal law, and Department of Transportation regulations specifically state that no federal funds are to be paid for any cost incurred not in conformity…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.