Have a draft with a comparison passage? A narrative review scores it against § 26.67 as amended and flags what an examiner will push back on.
You do not need to find the contractor down the road, get his loan file and prove he paid less. Nobody will hand it over, and the rule does not ask for it. It asks for something you can produce: a comparison between you and a peer who has your qualifications and lacks your barrier. Since September 25, 2026, the phrase in 49 CFR 26.67(a)(1) is “financing on terms available to non-disadvantaged individuals with comparable qualifications.” Most of what owners believe about it is wrong. Five corrections, then one example carried all the way through.
Five myths about the peer
MythYou have to identify a real competitor and prove what terms he got.
FactDOT wrote the opposite into the preamble. The rule “does not require owners to obtain confidential, private financial data of their competitors”; it asks for “a narrative of the owner’s disadvantage, not a financial audit of a competitor.” The peer is a construct. Build him from your own résumé minus your basis.
MythThe peer has to be someone better off than you financially.
FactThe comparison runs on credentials and work history, not bank balances. DOT’s example: two engineers, each holding an engineering bachelor’s, certified in the same or similar NAICS codes, with similar time in the field, compared “rather than current financial outcomes.” Compare wealth and you have changed the subject.
MythWith the presumptions gone, everyone is “non-disadvantaged,” so the comparison means nothing.
FactDOT said any individual could be non-disadvantaged and any individual could show disadvantage. The label follows the showing. Your peer is non-disadvantaged for exactly one reason: you removed your objective basis and left everything else in place.
MythOnly an outright loan denial counts as financing evidence.
FactRead the phrase in § 26.67(a)(1) again: “financing on terms available to.” Terms means rate, down payment, collateral, personal guarantee, term length and the cap on the amount. An approval at 13.25 percent when the sheet says 7.9 is evidence. So is a $15,000 line against a $75,000 request.
MythA narrative written with “similarly situated” is now wrong and has to be redone.
FactThe words changed. DOT said the comparison itself “is practical and makes sense.” If your draft already sets you beside a peer with your credentials, swap the phrase and keep the substance. If it compares you to “other businesses” in general, that part does need work.
One example, all the way through
You run an HVAC contractor: licensed for twelve years, three years in business, credit in the lender’s second tier. In March 2025 you ask a regional bank for a $90,000 equipment loan over 60 months. Before the meeting you print the bank’s posted rate sheet, dated that month: second-tier equipment loans at 7.9 percent with 20 percent down. Your commitment letter comes back at 13.25 percent, 30 percent down, a personal guarantee and a blanket lien on all business assets.
Now build the peer. Same license, same twelve years, same three years in business, same credit tier, same down-payment capacity. Remove your objective basis. That peer lands on the 7.9 percent row, because the bank’s own sheet puts him there.
Now the arithmetic. At 13.25 percent the payment is $2,059.31 a month and total interest is $33,559. At 7.9 percent it is $1,820.57 and $19,234. The gap is $238.74 a month and $14,325 over the term, before you count the extra $9,000 of down payment sitting with the bank instead of in your payroll account. The passage:
Here is the part nobody likes hearing. If your credit tier explains the whole gap, this example is not yours. The rate sheet is useful because it already controls for tier and down payment; whatever gap is left is the gap you are asking the examiner to pin on your basis. If the bank moved you down a tier over a late payment in 2023, say so and find a cleaner incident. An examiner who catches one inflated comparison reads the rest of your narrative with a pencil.
The documents that make the comparison
- The lender’s rate sheet or published APR range, dated, with the URL if you printed it from a website. An undated sheet proves very little.
- Your commitment letter, term sheet or denial letter, with whatever reasons it states.
- An amortization schedule, or a plain payment calculation, showing how you got your figure.
- Your license, certifications and a one-page work history. This is the “comparable qualifications” half of the sentence, and owners forget to prove it.
- If the incident is bonding rather than lending: the agent’s letter stating your single and aggregate limits, plus a second agent’s quote or a published premium range.
- Your credit report from the same period, since it shows the tier you were actually in.
The peer is not a person you have to track down. He is you, minus one thing, in front of the same rate sheet. Write him that way and the examiner can check your work in five minutes. The change is in the final rule; our guide covers the rest, and if you filed before September 25, read what to add after you have already submitted. Not legal advice.