Judge Liman, in granting a preliminary injunction against the "cancelation" of congestion pricing, agrees with this reading:

Great bit from the MTA’s preliminary injunction motion in the congestion pricing case.

From the PI motion.

Notably, the latest DOT threat letter shows that DOT wasn't able to identify a requirement of law that, if incorporated into the agreement by reference, would permit termination. Instead, they rely on the fallback argument DOJ offered, that a "pilot program" cannot be expected to last forever (lol).

Here's the reg. They rely on (a)(4), which allows an award to be rescinded "pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Federal award." I read (a)(4) only to authorize termination pursuant to the agreement's terms—as in, terms governing termination are a prerequisite to using (a)(4).

Yes, thank you, Judge Millett.

New Jersey, soon.