This part seeks to achieve several objectives:
(a) To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of opportunities for concessions by airports receiving DOT financial assistance;
(b) To create a level playing field on which ACDBEs can compete fairly for opportunities for concessions;
(c) To ensure that the Department's ACDBE program operates in a nondiscriminatory manner and without regard to race or sex, while maximizing efficiency of service;
(d) To ensure that only firms that fully meet this part's eligibility standards are permitted to participate as ACDBEs;
(e) To help remove barriers to the participation of ACDBEs in opportunities for concessions at airports receiving DOT financial assistance;
(f) To promote the use of ACDBEs in all types of concessions activities at airports receiving DOT financial assistance;
(g) To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the marketplace outside the ACDBE program; and
(h) To provide appropriate flexibility to airports receiving DOT financial assistance in establishing and providing opportunities for ACDBEs.
[70 FR 14508, Mar. 22, 2005, as amended at 89 FR 24956, Apr. 9, 2024; 90 FR 47977, Oct. 3, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
In Re Sherbrooke Sodding Co., 17 F. Supp. 2d 1026 (D. Minnesota 1998).
· cites it 6× “See 49 C.F.R. § 23.1 (1996). The regulations define groups which are presumptively “disadvantaged,” including: (a) “Black Americans,” which includes persons having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa; (b) “Hispanic Americans,” which includes persons of Mexican,…”
People ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Cook Dev. Co., 274 Ill. App. 3d 175 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995).
“) The stated purpose of part 23 is "to carry out the Department of Transportation’s policy of supporting the fullest possible participation of firms owned and controlled by minorities and women, (MBEs) in Department of Transportation programs.”
S.J. Groves & Sons Co. v. Fulton Cnty., 920 F.2d 752 (11th Cir. 1991).
· cites it 2× “These regulations are set out at 49 C.F.R. § 23.1 — 23.55. Fulton County developed an MBE program (the specifics of the program are discussed in Part III of this opinion), and the FAA approved it and awarded the funds to the County.”
Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 524 F. Supp. 233 (W.D.N.Y. 1981).
“Congress believed that special affirmative action policies were necessary because minority businesses have often been prevented from obtaining contracts in the first instance due to their lack of experience and concomitant inability to obtain financing.”
Michigan Road Builders Ass'n, Inc. v. Blanchard, 761 F. Supp. 1303 (W.D. Mich. 1991).
“Plaintiffs stipulate that STURAA and the regulations adopted pursuant to STURAA, 49 C.F.R. §§ 23.1 et seq., are constitutional for purposes of this action.”
People Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. v. COOK DEV. CO., 653 N.E.2d 843 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995).
“) The stated purpose of part 23 is "to carry out the Department of Transportation's policy of supporting the fullest possible participation of firms owned and controlled by minorities and women, (MBEs) in Department of Transportation programs.”
Nolan Contracting, Inc. v. Reg'l Transit Auth., 651 F. Supp. 23 (E.D. La. 1986).
“49 C.F.R. §§ 23.1 (a), 23.43(a)(1). To that end, *25 the Department has enacted regulations requiring recipients of federal funds to implement Minority Business Enterprise (“MBE”) programs.”
Host Int'l v. City of Oakland CA1/5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
“(See 49 C.F.R. § 23.1 .) In addition, the permit required Host to report to the Port the gross receipts of disadvantaged business enterprises listed in Exhibit 9 to the permit.”
Host Internat., Inc. v. City of Oakland (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
“(See 49 C.F.R. § 23.1 .) In addition, the permit required Host to report to the Port the gross receipts of disadvantaged business enterprises listed in Exhibit 9 to the permit.”
MD Minority Contract v. Kassoff (4th Cir. 1998).
“" 49 C.F.R. § 23.1 (a) (1997). The Plaintiffs primarily alleged that federal and Maryland state agencies and employees involved with the award and oversight of federal highway construction contracts in Maryland intentionally discriminated against businesses controlled by African…”
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.