C.F.R. » Title 49 » PART 26—PARTICIPATION BY DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES IN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS › Subpart D—Certification Standards

49 C.F.R. § 26.67

Social and economic disadvantage

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Non-presumptive disadvantage. Except as stated in § 26.63(c), all applicable owner(s) must demonstrate social and economic disadvantage (SED) affirmatively based on their own experiences and circumstances within American society, and without any presumptions based on race or sex.

(1) To satisfy the SED requirement and ensure all determinations of disadvantage are not based in whole or in part on a presumption of disadvantage based on race or sex, an owner must provide the certifier with a Personal Narrative (PN) that establishes the existence of disadvantage by a preponderance of the evidence based on individualized proof regarding specific instances of economic hardship, social barriers, or denied opportunities that impeded the owner's progress or success in education, employment, or business, including obtaining financing on terms available to non-disadvantaged individuals with comparable qualifications.

(2) The PN must identify at least one objective basis for the owner's disadvantaged status. The basis may be any identifiable status or condition. The PN must describe this objective distinguishing feature (ODF) in sufficient detail to justify the owner's conclusion that it prompted economic hardship, social barriers, or denied opportunities that the owner experienced.

(3) The PN must state how and to what extent the impediments caused the owner economic harm, including a full description of the type and magnitude.

(4) The owner must attach to the PN a current PNW statement and any other financial information he considers relevant. If a certifier has a reasonable basis to believe that an owner who submits a PNW statement that is below the current PNW cap is not economically disadvantaged, the certifier may determine that the individual is not economically disadvantaged in fact under paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Economically disadvantaged in fact. The certifier may conclude that a reasonable person would not consider the owner economically disadvantaged in fact (EDIF) compared to non-disadvantaged individuals with comparable qualifications.

(1) Evidence to consider. There are no limitations or exclusions. The certifier may consider individual's assets, income, access to credit and capital. (e.g., disproportionately expensive homes; premium luxury personal property; high-value stocks or retirement funds; unearned assets; substantial trust holdings). This includes avoiding the free use of, or ready access to, the benefits of such wealth. The certifier need only demonstrate “ballpark” values based on available evidence.

Example 1 to paragraph (b)(1):An owner of an engineering firm has, or enjoys the benefits of, excessively high income of $X; an exorbitant home worth approximately $Y; substantial interests in outside businesses Q, R, and S; four rental properties of aggregate value $Z; holds a high-value retirement account worth approximately $V.

(2) [Reserved]

[91 FR 60899, Sept. 25, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: City of Atlanta v. Corey Ent., Inc., 604 S.E.2d 140 (Ga. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Atlanta v. Corey Ent., Inc., 604 S.E.2d 140 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 3× “First, 49 CFR § 26.67 (a) (2) (iv) prohibits the release of “an individual’s personal net worth statement [and] any documentation supporting it.”
Klaver Constr. Co. v. Kansas Dep't of Transp., 211 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (D. Kan. 2002). · cites it 5× “Individual determinations of social and economic disadvantage are provided for in 49 C.F.R. § 26.67 (d) which provides that: Firms owned and controlled' by individuals who are not presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged (including individuals whose presumed…”
Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. California Dep't of Transp., 713 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2013). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 26.67 (a)(1), 26.83(c)(7)(ii).”
Greater Orlando Aviation Auth. v. Nejame, 4 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). · cites it 5× “49 C.F.R. § 26.67 (a)(2)(i) & (ii). Hojeij Branded Foods, Inc.”
W. States Paving Co. v. Washington State Dep't of Transp., 407 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 6× “49 C.F.R. § 26.67 (d). Moreover, the $750,000 net worth limitation on DBE status ensures that wealthy minorities who have not encountered discriminatory impediments do not receive an unwarranted windfall under the DBE program.”
Midwest Fence Corp. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 84 F. Supp. 3d 705 (N.D. Ill. 2015). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 26.67 (a); Pub.L. No. 112-141 § 1101 (b)(2)(B).”
C.S. McCrossan Constr., Inc. v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 946 F. Supp. 2d 851 (D. Minn. 2013). “49 C.F.R. § 26.67 (a)(1). .The following constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.”
Geod Corp. v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 746 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D.N.J. 2010). · cites it 4× “” 2 49 C.F.R. § 26.67 (a)(1). However, recipients of funds may make case-by-case determinations that “[f]irms controlled by individuals who are not presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged” still qualify for DBE certification.”
Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 345 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 26.67 (b). Small businesses do not qualify if their earnings exceeded $16.”
Mark One Elec. Co. v. City of Kansas City, 44 F.4th 1061 (8th Cir. 2022). “3 49 C.F.R. § 26.67 . As part of the certification process, an enterprise must show in writing that its owner’s or owners’ personal net worth is equal to or less than the applicable limit.”
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2000). “104 (b)(1) (2000); see also 49 C.F.R. § 26.67 (b)(1) (2000) (providing a net worth limit for DBEs under ISTEA and TEA-21); id.”
Grove, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 578 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2008). “On the second objection, the Final Decision stated that the Fifth Third Bank Note can “appropriately be considered a contingent liability,” AR 1100, which, under 49 CFR § 26.67 (a)(2)(iii)(C), should not reduce Mrs.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
49 C.F.R. § 26.67(b): 1 case
Tiare Enter., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 246 F. Supp. 3d 437 (D.D.C. 2017).
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.