24 hours of a request, however, is inconsistent with this criterion and with the recipient's obligations under this criterion.

The Department intends that this criterion be administered with reasonable administrative flexibility, for the benefit of both users and providers. For example, it may not be reasonable for a recipient to insist that a user call the recipient at 7:30 a.m. on Monday in order to get service at 7:30 a.m. Tuesday, even though this insistence would be literally consistent with the 24-hour response time criterion. A call at any point on Monday morning should usually be sufficient to permit the recipient to do the advance planning necessary for its morning trips on Tuesday.

Likewise, a recipient with no weekend bus service might not provide special service on weekends. Literally interpreted, the 24-hour criterion would force the recipient to open its call-in reservation office on Sunday to take reservations for Monday trips. The Department intends, in such a situation, that the recipient be able to keep its office closed on the weekend, taking reservations for Monday on the previous Friday.

The Department, then, interprets the 24hour criterion to mean “a reasonable time on the previous business day" in many cases. In addition, this criterion is not intended to prohibit advance sign-up requirements for special-purpose trips (e.g., for a group field trip). Nor is it intended to prohibit a recipient from allowing a user to make a reservation for more than a day in advance (e.g., from calling on Monday to reserve a trip for Thursday).

(3) Restrictions or priorities based on trip purpose. This criterion is intended to prohibit recipients from determining that they will not provide service for certain sorts of trips, which they have determined to be of relatively low importance, or from providing trips for such purposes only after requests for the trips they deem to be of higher importance have been fulfilled. This criterion, however, is not intended to preclude recipients from establishing subscription services. Trips on the subscription service may be limited to certain purposes (e.g., recurring work or medical trips). However, a recipient which operates a subscription service may not deny or delay transportation to other individuals, for other purposes, on the ground that all capacity is exhausted by subscription service and still meet this criterion.

(4) Fares. The fare charged for a trip to a user of the special service is required to be comparable to a trip of similar length, at a similar time of day, on the recipient's bus system. We recognize that, in most cases, a trip taken on special service will not be identical, in route or in length, to similar trip taken on the regular bus system. We recognize also that the cost and convenience

characteristics of special service systems differ from those of bus systems.

The key to determining an appropriate fare for the special service trip would be to calculate the cost of a similar trip on the regular bus system that the individual would take to get from his origin to his destination, if he or she were not handicapped, including the cost of transfers, if any (or zone change charges, express bus fares, etc.). Should there not be any reasonably equivalent trip that a user of the bus system could take, then the bus fare used for purposes of comparison would be derived by comparing the special service trip taken by the handicapped person to a bus trip of similar length elsewhere in the recipient's bus system.

Determining "comparability" between the bus fare for a similar trip and the special service fare is not an exact science. Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account such factors as the relative costs of providing the service, the time and convenience factors affecting users, and the Department's policy against pricing service out of the reach of users. It is likely, for example, that a $1.50 fare for special service would not be out of line, compared to a basic 80 cent fare for a similar bus trip, in most cases. At the other end of the scale, charging a special services user $20 for the same trip would be far removed from "comparability," because it would be grossly disproportionate to the bus fare and would deter disabled persons from using the service.

In doubtful cases falling in the middle of the scale, recipients should consult with UMTA. Fare levels for special service are, of course, one of the items that recipients should cover in their program submissions. While determinations are case-by-case, it is likely that UMTA would question fare levels that rose above two or three times the bus fare for a similar trip at a similar time of day.

This criterion deals with the fare charged the individual disabled user of the special service. If the bus fare between Point A and Point B is 80 cents, then the recipient can charge a special service user no more than a comparable fare for a similar bus trip. However, this requirement is not intended to preclude the common arrangements between recipients and social service agencies in which the social service agency subsidizes a considerable portion of the cost of a trip. The amount of such a subsidy is a matter between the recipient and the agency.

(5) Hours and days of service. If a recipient operates its bus service from 6:00 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week, then special service (e.g., paratransit or user-side subsidy) must be available throughout at least the hours 6:00 a.m. to midnight, seven days

a week. By saying “throughout" this period, the Department intends that service be available at any time during these hours. Providing service only during peak hours, or only from 6-7 a.m. and 10-11 p.m. would not be consistent with this requirement.

(6) Service area. A recipient must provide special service "throughout" the "circumferential" service area in which it provides regular bus service. This means that the recipient must provide this service not just along transportation corridors served by buses, but to all points of origin and destination within this area. (This is not intended to literally require door-to-door service, however. As long as the service is from the building or other location of origin to the building or other destination location, the criterion would be satisfied. Actually assisting a handicapped person from the door to the curb, for example, is not required.) A "many-to-few" system, with limited origins or destinations within the urbanized area, would not be consistent with the requirement to provide service "throughout” the area.

The recipient could determine the extent of the "cricumferential" service area in a number of ways. As the term implies, the recipient could simply draw on a map a circle encompassing the area in which all its regular bus routes operate. Alternatively, a recipient could take the outer termination points of its routes and "connect the dots," resulting in boundaries for the service area that more precisely follow the contours of the actual bus service area. Where the normal service is within the urbanized area, the Department would also have no objection, in many cases, to a recipient using the urbanized area as a service area for this purpose. Particularly for a recipient that already provided bus service to most parts of the urbanized area, this approach could be administratively simpler.

In determining the extent of its service area, the recipient need not encompass extended commuter or express bus routes. For example, many recipients may have a city/ suburban service area that is served regularly during peak and non-peak hours. In addition, the recipient may have peak-hour express commuter service to more distant exurban points. These commuter bus “spokes” do not extend the circumferential “hub” area that the recipient must serve with origin-to-destination special service.

For service (e.g., commuter bus) extending outside the basic service area, the recipient is required to provide service to handicapped persons only to and from the same points (e.g., bus stops) served by its buses for the general public. This service could be by special service following the bus route or accessible commuter bus, and would have to run only at the times when the commuter buses operated. Service to other origins and

destinations outside the basic service area is not required.

The circumferential service area need not necessarily be the same at all times of the day or week. For example, some recipients might not offer any late-night or weekend bus service on many routes outside the central city. The service area for special service could shrink proportionately at these times. (c) Service criteria for accessible bus systems. The final rule does not contain any specific requirement for the number of accessible buses a recipient must own and operate. Rather, subparagraph (1) of this paragraph says that the recipient must operate, on the street, enough buses to ensure that it meets the service criteria of subparagraphs (2) and/or (3).

To operate this number of buses on the street, recipients will need to consider the number of accessible buses they need in their reserve fleets. It is clear that in order to maintain the appropriate number of accessible buses on the street, a recipient will need to have some accessible buses in reserve in order to cover maintenance down time and other contingencies. A recipient would not comply with this subparagraph (or with § 27.87) if it owned sufficient accessible buses to meet the service criteria when all wer operating, but, for lack of reserve accessible buses, was unable to keep enough buses actually on the street to meet the criteria at all times.

Subparagraph (2) sets forth the other service criteria for scheduled accessible bus systems. A scheduled accessible bus system is simply one in which accessible buses are scheduled to be used for (and are used for) certain runs on certain routes. This use must be regular and consistent.

Subparagraph (2)(i) requires the scheduled accessible bus service to be available throughout the same days and hours as the recipient's bus service for the general public. For example, if a recipient's regular bus service runs from 6 a.m. to 12 midnight, then the scheduled accessible bus service must be available throughout this 18-hour period. Running accessible buses only during peak hours, or having only the first and last bus runs on a route accessible, would not be consistent with this criterion.

The scheduled accessible bus service running throughout this 18-hour period would have to be provided at reasonable intervals that make readily practicable the use of the service by handicapped persons. The regulation does not establish a specific requirement for what these intervals must be. The recipient's judgment about appropriate intervals, which should be informed by the rule's public participation and planning process and which is subject to UMTA review as part of the recipient's program submission, may vary according to such fac

tors as demand for accessible service on a particular route and the time of day.

Every interval on evey route in the system need not be the same. But intervals so wide or irregular as to provide merely token or perfunctory service, or which are significantly inconsistent with demand for accessible service, would not comply with this criterion.

Subparagraph (2)(ii) requires accessible bus service to be provided on all routes throughout the recipient's service area on which a need for service has been established through the rule's planning and public participation process. By saying "throughout the service area," this provision is not limited to service within the basic circumferential service area. Any route on which the recipient provides regular bus service (including extended commuter routes and express bus service) is potentially required to have accessible service.

Whether the potential requirement for accessible service on a given route becomes actual depends on whether the planning and public participation process shows that a need exists for accessible service on that route. The Department intends that a need for accessible service on a route be regarded as having been established when it is shown that one or more handicapped persons are likely to make reasonably regular use of bus service along some part of the route.

For example, bus routes serving centers for independent living, important transportation terminals, major medical facilities, universities, major employment centers, and other origins and destinations that are likely to generate trips by handicapped persons would probably need to have accessible service. However, a need for accessible service could also arise on a suburban route because one or more handicapped persons wished to use that route for trips to work, shopping, or other purposes on a reasonably regular basis.

The Department believes that it would be desirable for recipients choosing a scheduled accessible bus system to make some provision for providing services to disabled persons whose origin or destination is not on an accessible route. The form of such service is up to the recipient, however.

As with service intervals, the routes served by accessible bus service may change over time, as new service needs arise and former service needs disappear. Changes in the route structure of accessible service are also appropriate subjects for consultation through the continuing public participation process.

Subparagraph (2)(iii) provides that the fare for a handicapped person using the accessible bus system cannot be higher than the bus fare paid by other passengers. Everyone who gets on the bus to go from Point A to Point B pays the same fare, except

that the elderly and handicapped half-fare program of 49 CFR 609.23 continues to apply in the accessible bus context.

Subparagraph (3) contains service criteria for on-call bus service. An on-call accessible bus system is one in which accessible buses are not regularly scheduled on any particular routes or runs. Instead, handicapped persons wanting to use accessible buses call the transit provider and arrange for an accessible bus to come by a particular bus stop on a given route at a certain time.

Some of the criteria for on-call accessible bus service are virtually identical to the special service criteria. The eligibility (subparagraph (3)(i)), response time (subparagraph (3)(ii)), and the restrictions and priorities based on trip purpose criterion (subparagraph (3)(iii) are in this category. The fares criterion (subparagraph (3)(iv)) is identical to the fares criterion for scheduled accessible bus service.

Subparagraph (3)(v) concerns days and hours of service. Like its counterpart in the scheduled accessible bus service context, it requires service to be provided throughout the same days and hours as the recipient's bus service for the general public. This means that a handicapped person can request that any bus run the recipient makes, during any time the run is made for the general public, be made with an accessible bus. The recipient is obligated to fulfill the request. There is no provision concerning the intervals at which service is to be provided. Service is provided in response to all requests made for it.

The service area criterion (subparagraph (3)(vii)) requires accessible service to be provided on all the recipient's routes, on request. This means that when the recipient receives a request from a handicapped person for accessible service, the recipient must fulfill this request regardless of the route on which the service is requested (including extended commuter routes and express bus runs).

There is, however, no reference to establishing the need for bus service on particular routes through the planning process. This is because, in an on-call accessible bus system, need for service is established by each individual request for it, rather than on a generic basis for scheduled service on a route.

This subparagraph also specifies that "all buses needed to complete the handicapped person's trip" have to be provided. For example, suppose a handicapped person has to take a bus on route A to a given stop, and then transfer to a route B bus, in order to reach his or her destination. The recipient must ensure that the B bus, as well as the A bus, is provided at the appropriate time.

A recipient may comply with the rule by setting up an accessible bus system incorpo

rating elements of both scheduled and oncall accessible service. For example, the recipient could operate scheduled accessible bus service during peak hours while using on-call service during off-peak hours. A recipient could operate scheduled service on certain heavily-used corridors while using on-call service elsehwhere. The scheduled and on-call components of the service would each have to meet the service criteria for the respective types of service, and there could not be "gaps" in the overall service that left some routes, times, etc. unserved for handicapped persons.

For purposes of this rule, an accessible bus is one of that a handicapped person, inIcluding a wheelchair user, can enter and use. Currently, an accessible bus usually means a bus equipped with a lift. The Department does not intend to mandate the use of a particular piece of technology, however. If a device or bus design other than a lift-equipped standard transit bus can produce the same or better results for handicapped persons than present technology, then the Department will be willing to consider regarding it as meeting the accessible bus requirement.

(d) Service criteria for mixed systems. A mixed system is simply one in which some parts of the service area, or some days or times of day, are served by an accessible bus system, and others are served by a special service system. The key thing to remember about a mixed system is that each component must meet all criteria pertaining to that component. The overall system cannot have "gaps" that leave some areas, times, etc., unserved by service for handicapped persons.

In a mixed system, the special service and accessible bus components are not required to duplicate each other's efforts. Consequently, the special service system would not have to provide parallel service along accessible bus corridors. For example, the special service system would not have to honor a request from a handicapped person to be picked up at his home, situated reasonably close to a bus stop on an accessible corridor, and be transported to a destination served by a bus route using that stop.

The recipient might also reduce the scope of the special service it had to provide by linking the ends of or other strategic points on accessible routes with an accessible shuttle service, so that someone wanting to travel from a point along Route A to a destination at the end of Route B could complete his trip using only accessible buses and the shuttle. Except where it would duplicate accessible bus service, however, the recipient's special service would have to meet all service criteria applicable to any special service system (e.g., the special service system would have to pick up the same handicapped person from his or her home if

he or she were going to a location not on the nearby accessible route or one accessibly connected with it).

The recipient is responsible for coordinating the components of its mixed system so as to minimize inconvenience to handicapped users. This coordination should include consideration of transfers between components. The coordination of mixed system components is one of the features UMTA will evaluate as it reviews the program submissions of recipients planning mixed systems.

(e) Services of other providers and through other modes. Paragraph (e) states the principle, for all service modes, that a recipient may count the services of other providers toward meeting the full performance level. This is true even though the expenditures of these other providers are not eligible expenses under § 27.99.

For example, suppose that a social service agency operates a subscription service that transports wheelchair users who need kidney dialysis to medical facilities where the treatment takes place. As part of a coordinated transportation system for handicapped persons in the urbanized area, the recipient is able to refer persons in this category to the social service agency, which provides the dialysis trips instead of the recipient itself. The recipient can count this service as part of the service meeting its full performance level.

This paragraph also provides that service provided through other modes of transportation may be counted toward meeting the service criteria. For instance, suppose a transit authority operates an accessible rail system. The recipient chooses to meet the full performance level through making its bus system accessible. Like many bus/rail operators, however, the recipient uses its buses to feed passengers into and out of the rail system. The recipient could feed disabled passengers into the accessible rail system in the same manner as it did other passengers, and would not have to run bus service that duplicated the rail lines. The recipient could treat both its bus service from Point A to a rail station and the accessible rail service from the station to Point B as contributing to meeting the service criteria.

The key is coordination by the recipient of these services into a coherent whole. The mere facts that a social service organization may be providing some transportation somewhere in the urbanized area, or that there may be an accessible rail system in the same area, unless these services are in a system coordinated by the recipient, are irrelevant to the recipient's ability to meet the full performance level.

This provision permits any recipient to request a technical exemption from any provision of this subpart. Such a request can be made at any time, as an independent request. It is also possible for a recipient to submit a technical exemption request as part of, or in connection with, the recipient's program submission. Section 27.101(b) clearly sets forth the standards for granting exemptions under this rule. These standards are consistent with the standards DOT has applied to requests for exemptions in the past. First, there must be special local circumstances. That is, the reasons specified for the requested exemption must be, if not literally unique, quite specific to the local area requesting the exemption. The Department will not grant an exemption based on circumstances common to a broad class of recipients. An exemption from a regulatory requirement based on circumstances common to many recipients would constitute, in effect, a rulemaking of general applicability, which may be made only through normal rulemaking procedures.

Second, the circumstances used to support the exemption request must involve matters not contemplated, or taken into account, as part of the rulemaking process for this rule. The Department is aware that it probably has not thought of all possible issues or situations that can arise. This exemption procedure is intended to apply to matters not dealt with in this rulemaking. If, on the other hand, the Department has received and considered comments on how a certain issue or situation has been handled, and then made a decision, the exemption process is not a mechanism for reconsidering a regulatory decision the Department has made.

Third, the applicant for an exemption must demonstrate that the circumstances cited make compliance with the rule unduly burdensome or unreasonable. The undue burdens or unreasonableness, consistent with the two standards discussed above, must be specific to the particular grantee, and not something affecting grantees, or a broad class of them, in common.

Fourth, the recipient must show that, if it is granted the exemption, it will take some alternate action that will substantially comply with the regulation. The grant of an exemption is not a license for noncompliance; it is agreement by the Department and the recipient that the recipient will take action adequate to provide transportation services to handicapped persons, even though it is, in some respects, excused from following the letter of the regulation. It should be emphasized, however, that the exemption provision is not intended to permit recipients to fashion "do-it-yourself” modifi

cations of the requirements of the regulation.

The Department may grant a request for a technical exemption, in whole or in part, or deny it. The Department may also place any reasonable conditions on the grant of the exemption. The UMTA Administrator will sign grants or denials of exemption requests, and such requests should be addressed to the Administrator. In keeping with existing DOT practice, the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs must concur in grants or denials of exemption requests under this rule.

Section 27.103 Alternate procedures for recipients in States administering the section 5, 9, and 9A programs

Section 27.103 provides a slightly different procedure for submitting documents under this subpart if a state has elected to administer UMTA's sections 5, 9, and 9A programs for UMTA. This procedure applies to urbanized areas of under 200,000 population. If a state has made this election, the designated state agency is the actual recipient of the UMTA funds and the state agency, in turn, passes them through to the urbanized area. This is similar to the section 18 program.

If the election is made, the local recipient must send the program required under § 27.85, the slippage report under § 27.89(c), the certification and report under § 27.91(f), and any compact under § 27.93(c) to the designated state agency and not to UMTA. (The state would have to inform UMTA when a slippage report was received). The designated state agency acts for UMTA to review and, as necessary, approve these documents. In doing so, any deadlines which the regulation imposes on UMTA apply to the designated state agency. For example, the designated state agency would, under § 27.85(b), have to complete its review of the local recipient's program within 120 days of its submission. Similarly, the time extensions under § 27.85(c) would also apply to the designated state agency.

Section 27.103(b) requires the designated state agency to certify to UMTA that the recipients in its state are in compliance with this subpart. This certification can cover more than one recipient, but it is due to UMTA no later than 30 days after the designated state agency approves the recipient's program.

It is important to note that the state's election to administer these programs is voluntary. Any recipient located in a state not so electing must send its material to UMTA. Also, the provisions in this section do not apply to small recipients covered by § 27.91.