dissenting.
I dissent. The new regulations proposed in October, 1985 by the appellee, Penndot, were published in 15 Pa.Bull. 3944-3955 (No. 44, Saturday, November 2, 1985). The portion of the proposed regulations which is relevant here provided as follows:
§ 425.7. Reimbursement criteria and methodology.
(a) Program reimbursement for contractors — except county transportation systems offering free service to senior citizens — will be calculated according to paragraph (1) or (2).
(1) Where a contractor has in effect a Department-approved shared-ride fare structure established under § 425.8 (relating to fares): 9 x total shared-ride fares applicable to eligible senior citizen trips.
(2) Where a contractor does not have in effect a Department-approved shared-ride fare structure established under § 425.8, the Department will adjust the contractor’s applicable fare structure to reflect the economics of shared-ride transportation service, and calculate program reimbursement as follows: 9 x total fares applicable to eligible senior citizen trips x shared-ride fare adjustment factor.
(3) For the purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2):
(i) Eligible senior citizen trips = the sum of one way senior citizen passenger trips eligible under the program.
*241[[Image here]]
(b) The maximum reimbursement per eligible senior citizen trip under subsection (a) may not exceed $27— based upon a $30 fare — for trips originating or terminating outside of an urbanized area and for trips for nonambulatory persons, and $18 — based upon a $20 fare — for trips originating and terminating within an urbanized area.
(c) Services are eligible for reimbursement under the program only if they are rendered by the applicant or by contractors disclosed in the grant application and approved by the Department.
(d) Surcharges, penalties and no-show fees are ineligible for reimbursement.
One day prior to the day of the hearing on the regulations before the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC), Penndot delivered to the IRRC a revised draft of *242the proposed regulations. On the morning of the hearing, the amended proposed regulations were delivered in final form to the IRRC. The modified regulations contained significant changes in the calculation of reimbursement limitations under the section 203 program. The previously published “reimbursement criteria and methodology” set out above, was completely altered. The IRCC, without the benefit of written comments from interested parties and over the objections of those interested parties in attendance at the hearing, approved the revised regulations. Subsequently, the modified regulations were promulgated by publication in 16 Pa.Bull. 24-31 (No. 1, Saturday, January 4, 1986). The portion of the revised regulations dealing with reimbursement limitations provides as follows:
§ 425.6. Reimbursement limits.
(a) The Department will reimburse each contractor upon the receipt of a properly prepared monthly invoice under § 425.10 (relating to invoicing) an amount equal to 90% of its Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission approved fare or contract rate for each ride up to the following per mile or trip fare limits on reimbursement:
(1) For eligible applicants providing services predominantly utilizing a rate structure based upon mileage, total reimbursement each month may not exceed actual passenger miles of service provided multiplied by the following per mile fare reimbursement limits:
(1) For trips originating or terminating within Philadelphia County, $2.05.
(ii) For trips originating or terminating within Allegheny County, $1.50.
(iii) For other trips, 70<p.
(2) For eligible applicants providing services predominantly utilizing a rate structure based upon an ambulatory one-way per passenger trip fare, total monthly reimbursement may not exceed the actual number of one-way trips provided that month to eligible applicants multiplied *243by the following maximum trip fare reimbursement limits:
(i) For trips originating or terminating within Philadelphia County, $11.60.
(ii) For trips originating or terminating within Allegheny County, $8.90.
(iii) For other trips, $4.45.
(3) For services provided to nonambulatory persons, the per trip or per passenger mile reimbursement limits provided by this subsection will be increased by 33%%.
(4) The maximum, reimbursement per eligible senior citizen trip under this section may not exceed $27 based upon a $30 fare.
(5) The per trip or per passenger mile reimbursement limits provided by paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) will be reviewed annually by the Department. Not later than November 1 of each year, the Department will notify contractors, eligible applicants, and the transportation committees of the Senate and House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, and will submit a notice to the Legislative Reference Bureau for recommended publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin concerning the initiation of a review. The Department will conduct a public hearing prior to revising the limits. Revised limits will be adopted by a rulemaking modifying the provisions of this section which will establish revised per trip or per passenger mile reimbursement limits adequate to provide fair and reasonable reimbursement to efficiently and economically operating eligible applicants.
(6) An eligible applicant providing the sole source of shared-ride trips within a county and local transportation organization or county transportation system may request that the Department establish alternative per mile or per trip limits, if unusual local conditions significantly increase the cost of shared-ride service above the limits established under this section.
*244(b) County transportation systems and local organizations will be reimbursed based upon amounts approved by contract with the Department, but not to exceed the limitations provided by subsection (a).
(c) Services are eligible for reimbursement under the program only if they are rendered by the eligible applicants or by contractors disclosed in the grant application and approved by the Department.
(d) Surcharges, penalties, and no-show fees are ineligible for reimbursement.
The appellants argue that the revised section 425.6 setting forth reimbursement limits in the final regulations were adopted and promulgated in violation of the Commonwealth Documents Law. 45 P.S. § 1201, et seq. The appellants assert that the law was violated because the revised regulations were not published as proposed regulations prior to adoption and promulgation. Section 202 of the Commonwealth Documents Law, 45 P.S. § 1202, in pertinent part, provides:
The agency text of any administrative regulation or change therein as finally adopted may contain such modifications to the proposed text as published pursuant to section 201 as do not enlarge its original purpose, but modifications which enlarge the original purpose of a proposal as published under section 201 shall be republished thereunder prior to final adoption by the agency.
1968, July 81, P.L. 769, No. 240, art II, § 202, 45 P.S. § 1202.
The reimbursement limitations set forth in Section 425.6 of the final regulations differ significantly from the limitations contained in Section 425.7 of the proposed regulations. In the final regulations promulgated on January 4, 1986, there is a section by section discussion of the revisions made to the original proposal. In reviewing the reimbursement limitation provisions, it is noted that the finally adopted section “deletes the fare reimbursement factors *245based upon minimum productivity measures and establishes per trip or mile fare limits in reimbursement.” 16 Pa.Bull. 25. It is also pointed out that in the final regulations, “recognition is given to the operating and economic differences among Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other areas of the State.” 16 Pa.Bull. 25.
Contrary to the disclaimer contained in the final regulations, and the finding of the majority that the modifications do not enlarge the original purpose of the rules, the significant revisions in the reimbursement limitations do indeed enlarge the purpose of the proposed regulations within the meaning of the Commonwealth Documents Law.
The revisions made to the proposed regulations were substantial. The final regulations significantly limit the reimbursement to carriers in a fashion that is entirely different from the “criteria and methodology” set forth in the proposed regulations. The radical modifications constitute an “enlargement of purpose” in that the regulations as finally promulgated include reimbursement limitation concepts that are foreign to the original proposed regulations. Fairness and Section 1202 of the Commonwealth Documents Law dictate that the modifications should have been republished prior to final adoption. In that way, interested members of the public would have had the opportunity to review and comment upon them prior to adoption and promulgation as final regulations. Because this required statutory procedure was not followed here, I would hold that the reimbursement limitation as set forth in Section 425.6 of the final regulations are invalid.
McDERMOTT and PAPADAKOS, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.