Compliance Sweep, October 18, 2026

On October 15, DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division and HHS-OIG issued a policy coordinating voluntary self-disclosures involving potential criminal violations affecting federal healthcare programs. A qualifying disclosure to the Health Care Fraud Section within the Corporate Enforcement Policy receives the benefits of OIG’s Health Care Fraud Self-Disclosure Protocol without a second submission through OIG’s portal. The Health Care Fraud Section provides OIG a copy. The policy also preserves qualifying good-faith disclosures to another appropriate DOJ component; it does not make one named office the exclusive permissible route.

A submission only to OIG generally does not qualify as a DOJ voluntary self-disclosure for Corporate Enforcement Policy treatment, although cooperation and remediation credit may remain available. The policy retains the underlying voluntary-disclosure, full-cooperation and timely-remediation conditions and aggravating-circumstances qualifications. SDP benefits do not resolve mandatory exclusion under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a), and the coordination policy creates no enforceable private right. These limits distinguish coordinated benefits from automatic immunity or a release of every potential consequence.

DHS published a final rule effective October 14 adopting without change the 2025 interim rule that removed most automatic employment-authorization-document extensions for renewal applications filed on or after October 30, 2025. Finalization does not create a new October 2026 filing cutoff. Employers therefore need the renewal filing date, category and applicable authority to determine which extension framework applies, rather than treating all pending renewals alike.

Eligible renewals filed before the October 30, 2025 cutoff can retain the earlier automatic extension, potentially up to 540 days from the card’s expiration date while the application is pending, subject to the applicable receipt and category conditions. Extensions provided by law or a Federal Register notice, including applicable Temporary Protected Status extensions, remain distinct. An EAD extension does not extend advance parole printed on a combination card, and expiration of an EAD does not establish loss of underlying work authorization for every status. USCIS’s M-274 summary provides background; category-specific instructions require their own review.

DOJ announced coordinated action October 13 against alleged North Korean remote IT-worker schemes, including arrests in an Ohio case and a Texas operation involving approximately 187 computer devices. The Ohio allegations describe stolen or fabricated identities, proxy infrastructure and U.S.-based facilitators hosting employer laptops. DOJ identifies healthcare companies among more than 70 victim employers across several sectors. Charges remain allegations; the announcement does not establish that every affected employer suffered a patient-data breach.

The reported timeline contains distinct events. The October 13 release announced the Ohio indictment and arrests, while Texas searches and related action at more than 40 known or suspected laptop-farm residences occurred September 21–25. The October 13 release also points employers to a new FBI advisory about evolving facilitator recruitment and other detection issues. The mechanism connects hiring and contractor identity, device location and remote-access arrangements. It is not limited to a vendor’s written assurance that its workers are U.S.-based.

HHS published a delegation to the CMS Administrator of the Secretary’s permissive exclusion authority under section 1128(b) of the Social Security Act on October 14. The notice explains that CMS requested the authority so it can investigate, identify and develop the evidentiary basis for permissive exclusions while administering Medicare and Medicaid. It revises limitations in the earlier delegation and states that the delegation is effective immediately. The notice does not provide a separate signature date that would support assigning a different calendar effective date.

The authority may be redelegated under applicable departmental policies, procedures and regulations. The delegation expressly excludes conducting hearings and issuing regulations, and it does not diminish the Inspector General’s earlier delegated authority or actions under that delegation. HHS also affirms and ratifies earlier exercises of the delegated authority by the Administrator or subordinates. The announcement does not itself exclude an organization or create a new substantive exclusion ground; provider-specific consequences still require the applicable authority and action.

DEA published an October 14 notice of intent, signed October 8, to temporarily place 7-hydroxymitragynine and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl above revised thresholds in Schedule I. It follows an October 8 HHS recommendation and replaces the earlier 7-hydroxymitragynine scheduling intent through a separate withdrawal notice. DEA states that a temporary order will be published on or after November 13. This notice is the advance step, not the later order that would impose the revised controls, and November 13 is not an automatic effective date.

The proposed threshold is met when either substance alone, or their combined amount if both are present, exceeds 1 milligram per gram in solid forms or 1 milligram per milliliter in liquids, or when the mass of mitragynine divided by the mass of the relevant substance or their combined amount is less than 100. The strict greater-than and less-than conditions matter. The August 26 temporary order placing mitragynine pseudoindoxyl in Schedule I without a threshold remains effective until it expires or a replacement order is published and the prior order withdrawn, whichever occurs first. DEA expressly cautions that the threshold is not a finding that below-threshold products are safe. The notice describes eventual Schedule I controls for covered handling, research and possession when the new order takes effect.

OHCA’s emergency regulations establishing requests for nonsupervisory organized labor cost adjustments took effect October 12, 2026. The process permits specified hospitals, psychiatric health facilities, physician organizations, fully integrated delivery systems and qualifying labor organizations acting on their behalf to request an adjustment to an applicable spending target when the relevant labor costs are projected to grow faster than that target. Requestors must use OHCA’s portal and the incorporated September 2026 specifications, supplying expense data, projections, methodology and supporting labor documents under penalty of perjury. Requests made in 2026 are due November 16, 2026; the ordinary deadline is the last business day of October two years before the requested adjustment year, with a separate request for each year.

Submitted information, including labor agreements, is public by default. A requestor seeking confidentiality must submit public and unredacted versions, explain the legal grounds and requested duration, and obtain OHCA’s acceptance of the designation; the unredacted material remains confidential while that determination is pending. The final addendum removed automatic confidentiality for labor agreements and clarified that a provider’s required accuracy attestation does not amount to approval of a labor organization’s request. OHCA may later request documents to determine whether an adjustment remains warranted, generally requiring a response within 10 days unless a good-cause extension applies.

The Dental Board's proposal, published in the October 16, 2026 Notice Register, would amend 16 CCR section 1005 for dental healthcare personnel who may be occupationally exposed to infectious materials, including potentially exposed nonclinical and unpaid personnel. It would replace the existing written-protocol requirement with an accessible infection-control plan covering all applicable standard precautions, reviewed and updated at least annually by the employer or its designated representative. Employers of dental healthcare personnel would provide training at no cost during working hours before assignment to exposure tasks and within one year of the previous training. Additional training would be required by the effective date of changes to the standard or plan and could focus on those changes. Written comments must be received by November 30; no hearing is scheduled, but one must be held if timely requested at least 15 days before the comment period closes.

The proposed processing controls would add an internal chemical indicator to every sterilization package, with an external indicator also required when the internal indicator cannot be seen from outside. Personnel would inspect indicators immediately upon removing packages from the sterilizer and repackage and sterilize instruments again when the indicator does not register penetration. The proposal retains weekly biological monitoring and 12-month result retention while specifying confirmation by authorized personnel or an independent laboratory. It expressly includes motors among rotary components subject to packaging, labeling and heat sterilization, and adds reprocessing requirements for compromised sterile packaging.

The waterline provisions would remove air purging as the start-of-day alternative to water flushing, retain the two-minute initial flush, specify at least 20 seconds of flushing after each patient, and add routine monitoring or testing according to manufacturer instructions. The proposal also adds respiratory-hygiene signs at entrances and reception or registration desks, tissues and no-touch receptacles, accessible hand-hygiene supplies, mask offers to coughing or sneezing persons, and distancing of symptomatic patients, with a separate waiting area when available. Irrigation on exposed dental pulp would have to use sterile solutions or solutions with disinfecting or antibacterial properties, reflecting the statutory provision identified in the statement of reasons. These are proposed regulatory amendments; the notice does not make the package operative or suspend existing infection-control duties.

The Civil Rights Council's October 16, 2026 notice proposes amendments to California's pregnancy and CFRA employment regulations. The proposal retains general coverage of private employers with five or more employees, while the harassment provision reaches employers with one or more employees. It would expand and reorganize pregnancy-related definitions, expressly address discriminatory automated employment decisions, and clarify that a qualified employee can include someone whose inability to perform an essential function can be reasonably accommodated through its temporary suspension or other arrangements. The Council will hold a hearing December 8 at 11 a.m.; written comments must be received that day by 5 p.m. The notice establishes a proposed rulemaking, not an effective date for the amendments.

Accommodation and transfer requests could be made at any time, with employer responses required as soon as practicable and unnecessary delay potentially violating the rule even if relief is eventually provided. The proposal would replace the current combined ten-calendar-day response language with separate, context-specific provisions. It identifies water, restroom, sitting or standing, and eating or drinking breaks as common accommodations for which delay will likely be unnecessary. Temporary work-enabling accommodations would count in the delay assessment; leave would count for that purpose only when selected or requested by the employee. Pregnancy-disability-leave notice would require reasonable advance notice, with 30 days creating a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness rather than a fixed minimum, and notice as soon as practicable when advance notice is impracticable.

The proposed certification section would permit medical certification only when reasonable under the circumstances, require acceptance of sufficient documentation and an opportunity to cure deficiencies, and prohibit requiring the certifier to be the treating provider. For accommodations, certification would not be reasonable when the need is obvious, sufficient information is already available, specified simple accommodations are requested, certain pumping or nursing accommodations are involved, or comparable accommodations are available to others without certification. Only employee self-confirmation could be requested for the specified simple accommodations. An unreasonable documentation demand could not justify denial, and excessive demands could constitute interference or retaliation. Return-to-work language would expressly contemplate return with or without reasonable accommodation under a uniformly applied release policy.

For CFRA bonding leave, the Council proposes deleting the two-week minimum and the rule guaranteeing only two shorter occasions, while retaining the requirement to conclude bonding leave within one year of birth or placement. The text also clarifies that pregnancy disability leave, CFRA and accommodation leave under the PWFA or FEHA are distinct entitlements. Exhausting pregnancy disability leave and any available CFRA leave would not automatically end assessment of additional reasonable-accommodation leave. That assessment remains conditional on the applicable law and, for FEHA disability accommodation, a qualifying disability; the proposal does not promise unlimited leave or remove CFRA eligibility requirements.

The October 16, 2026 Notice Register announces proposed amendments to title 8 sections 332.4, 334, 335, 336 and 340.4 governing Cal/OSHA classifications, penalties, postings and abatement documentation. The principal provisions implement the egregious and enterprise-wide citation categories already created by SB 606 in Labor Code sections 6317 and 6317.8. This is a proposed regulatory framework, rather than a newly enacted statutory enforcement authority. Written comments must be received by November 30, or may be submitted at the December 3 public hearing beginning at 10 a.m. The notice does not establish an effective date for the proposed amendments.

An egregious violation would require a willful violation plus a qualifying factor within the specified five-year period. The proposed prior-history thresholds include one final repeat, willful or egregious violation, five final serious violations, or ten final general or regulatory violations. Other grounds include intentional disregard of safety duties, clear bad faith, specified fatality or injury history, or an experience modifier above 125 percent. A catastrophe would include inpatient hospitalization of at least three employees, regardless of duration, resulting from a workplace hazard. The proposed penalty procedure would issue a separate citation and willful-calculation penalty for each exposed employee; ten exposed employees would mean ten separate penalties, rather than one penalty for the group.

For employers with employees at multiple worksites, a violative written policy applying at more than one site, or evidence of a pattern or practice across sites, would create a rebuttable enterprise-wide presumption. The written-policy basis would retain the statutory exception for emergency regulations during the first 30 days after the Standards Board votes to adopt or amend them. The proposed enterprise-wide calculation multiplies the penalty by covered worksites, using only classifications, characterizations and credits shared by every covered violation. The draft caps the resulting enterprise-wide penalty at $162,851 and generally limits section 336(d) reductions to size. Enterprise-wide general violations would lose the presumed abatement credit but could receive the specified 50 percent credit upon qualifying timely abatement; egregious general and serious violations would not receive abatement credit.

The package would also change the penalty-history lookback from three to five years and expand citation posting to customary notice locations as well as the violation site, with effective notice and an infeasibility qualification. Abatement certification would be due within ten working days after the abatement date, replacing calendar-day wording to align the regulation with the cited statute; the existing exception for an officer who promptly observes and records abatement remains. For enterprise-wide failures to abate, the proposed penalty would follow the worksites that remain unabated, rather than treating correction at some sites as correction everywhere. These details make site-level evidence and enterprise policy governance central to the proposed process.

FDA's October 13, 2026 Federal Register notice announces availability of final guidance on postapproval manufacturing changes to licensed biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products. HHS lists the guidance's issue date as October 9, so October 13 is the availability-announcement date. The guidance finalizes the July 2024 draft and supersedes the earlier Q&A I.20 recommendations. FDA identifies further alignment with ICH Q5E, clarification of how original comparative analytical assessment data can be leveraged, and clarification of supplements for new strengths or dosage forms as changes from the draft. The guidance is nonbinding; the manufacturing-change duties it cites under 21 CFR 601.12 remain regulatory requirements. It establishes no general provider implementation deadline, and guidance comments may be submitted at any time.

For section 351(k) license holders, the document explains the existing risk-based reporting categories: major changes require a prior-approval supplement and approval before distribution; moderate changes generally use a CBE-30 supplement received at least 30 days before distribution, with CBE-0 available in qualifying circumstances; minor changes are documented in an annual report. If FDA notifies the applicant within 30 days that prior approval is required or required supplement information is missing, the changed product must not be distributed until FDA determines compliance. FDA recommends a comparability exercise proportionate to the change's risks, including suitable analytical comparisons, stability information and process-validation evidence. Historical data may support the assessment when quality attributes remain comparable, but selected subsets need scientific justification and changed assays need appropriate bridging data. A qualified in-house reference material generally supports the exercise; the document does not require a fresh comparison against the reference product for every manufacturing change.

The guidance also addresses introducing a product into a multiproduct or contract manufacturing facility. Where related products could be confused, a single identity test may not distinguish them, so applicable manufacturing and procedural controls must address cross-contamination and mix-ups. For a new strength or dosage form not previously licensed in the 351(k) application, FDA generally anticipates a prior-approval supplement supported by risk-based comparability, manufacturing and comparative analytical assessment information. The proposed dosage form and strength must match the reference product, and the supplement must support biosimilarity and any interchangeability determination. Previously submitted analytical data may be leveraged when justified, while observed quality differences may require targeted additional comparisons and some changes may need other data. The guidance recommends discussing the package with the review division before submission and expressly does not cover route-of-administration changes.

FDA announced its Rare Disease Framework Initiative on October 14, 2026 and published an accompanying white paper describing a prospective review of rare-disease development and regulatory-review practices. Led by the Rare Disease Innovation Hub with CDER, CBER and the Office of the Commissioner, the initiative extends from pre-IND engagement through postapproval obligations and chemistry, manufacturing and controls. Its stated aim is to tailor advice and evidentiary expectations to the disease, product, patient population and evidence reasonably attainable in small populations. The white paper expressly preserves statutory safety and effectiveness requirements; the announcement does not itself approve a therapy or put a completed replacement review framework into effect.

The planned approach emphasizes early patient input, external disease expertise, shared institutional knowledge, innovative trial and statistical methods, and risk-based CMC review and preapproval inspections. FDA intends to use public input, sector-specific roundtables and internal feedback to assess possible regulatory revisions, new or revised guidance, reviewer training and organizational changes. These are potential outputs rather than completed legal amendments. The October 16 Federal Register notice asks for specific feedback in four areas: fit-for-purpose review and attainable evidence, consistency and predictability, engagement with patients and external experts, and rare-disease CMC considerations.

The hybrid public meeting is scheduled for October 28 from 1 to 5 p.m. Eastern Time, at FDA's White Oak campus and virtually. The notice says the public docket, FDA-2026-N-12214, will open October 28 and close December 11; it should not be described as already open at the October 17 cutoff. Electronic comments are due by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on December 11, while paper comments must be received by that date. Disability-accommodation requests are due October 26 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. In-person places are limited and registration is subject to acceptance. Electronic comments and attachments will be publicly posted; confidential submissions must follow the notice's separate paper-submission instructions.

EPA published a final rule on October 13, 2026, extending the initial compliance date for Clean Water Act hazardous-substance facility response plans from June 1, 2027, to June 1, 2030. The rule takes effect December 14, 2026. The program concerns onshore, non-transportation-related facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial environmental harm from a worst-case hazardous-substance discharge to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone. EPA lists hospitals among potentially affected industries, while expressly directing entities to the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 118.3. A hospital's industry classification alone does not establish coverage.

The amended schedule distinguishes five facility categories. An initially regulated facility operating on November 30, 2029, and satisfying section 118.3 must submit its response plan and Appendix A Substantial Harm Certification Form by June 1, 2030. A facility that first satisfies those criteria after November 30, 2029, or receives a Regional Administrator notification under section 118.5, generally must submit within six months of meeting the criteria or receiving notification. Covered newly constructed facilities beginning operations after June 1, 2030, must submit before operations start. A planned change creating coverage after that date requires submission before the affected portion begins operating; an unplanned change creating coverage requires submission within six months. The new-construction and planned-change provisions also require plan adjustments after a 60-day operational trial period.

The final rule also removes explicit climate-change and environmental-justice references from specified provisions. Its revised adverse-weather definition still requires consideration of conditions that make response equipment and personnel less able to clean up or respond to a discharge. The revised response-plan provision continues to require chemical-specific hazard information and evaluation of worst-case discharge effects in adverse weather. Revised Regional Administrator factors include lack of passive mitigation, reportable discharge history, relevant site-specific environmental characteristics and nearby facility density. These amendments change specified planning language; they do not eliminate the response-plan program.

EPA published an interim final rule on October 14, 2026, immediately extending the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program deadline for reporting-year 2025 annual reports from October 30, 2026, to March 10, 2027. The operative amendment to 40 CFR 98.3(b)(6) applies specifically to reporting year 2025. EPA states that the action changes only that reporting deadline and makes no other changes to the rule. The extension follows the February 2026 rule that had moved the same reporting deadline from March 31 to October 30, 2026.

The extension concerns entities required to submit annual reports under 40 CFR part 98, including covered direct emitters, suppliers and underground carbon-dioxide sequestration operations. EPA's examples include general stationary fuel-combustion sources and health services, but an organization's healthcare identity or ownership of combustion equipment does not by itself resolve its reporting status. EPA explains that the extension provides more time to consider comments on its separate 2025 program-reconsideration proposal and prepare the reporting system. That proposal included eliminating reporting-year 2025 reports, but this interim final rule does not adopt that proposal or remove the applicable annual-report requirement.

EPA requests comments on the interim final rule by November 30, 2026. If someone requests a hearing on or before October 19, EPA will hold a virtual hearing on October 29; the notice does not establish that a hearing request had already been received. If the hearing occurs, the last day to preregister to speak is October 26, and requests for special accommodation should be made by October 21. EPA directs participants to its program website for hearing updates. These participation dates are separate from the March 10, 2027 reporting deadline.

In AFL 26-29, dated October 16, CDPH reminds facilities that a power outage related to a planned Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) is an unusual occurrence reportable under existing Title 22 requirements. Although the letter is addressed to All Facilities, its mandatory reporting list names thirteen facility types: Acute Psychiatric Hospitals; Adult Day Health Centers; Chemical Dependency Recovery Hospitals; Congregate Living Health Facilities; Correctional Treatment Centers; Intermediate Care Facilities; Intermediate Care Facilities/Developmentally Disabled; Intermediate Care Facilities/Developmentally Disabled, Habilitative; General Acute Care Hospitals; Pediatric Day Health and Respite Care Facilities; Primary Care Clinics; Psychology Clinics; and Skilled Nursing Facilities. At issuance, CDPH said it was monitoring PSPS events expected over the next few days in 29 counties. That statement describes the October 16 monitoring context.

For the listed facilities, the letter directs reporting of PSPS outages, generator and fuel status, patient impacts and resource needs to the local Center for Health Care Quality district office, local public health officer and Medical Health Operational Area Coordinator (MHOAC). During normal business hours, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., facilities contact their usual local district office. After hours, or if that office is non-operational because of an emergency or disaster, facilities outside Los Angeles County contact the CDPH duty officer at 1-916-328-3605; Los Angeles County facilities contact the county operator at 1-213-974-1234 and ask for notification of the on-call Health Facilities Inspector Division supervisor. MHOAC notification follows local protocols. The requested details include whether the generator is functioning, the days or supply of fuel available, plans to obtain more fuel or evacuate if necessary, patient impacts and resource needs. The letter also reiterates that facilities must have power-loss contingency plans and recommends reviewing emergency plans and adequate backup power.

DHS proposed on October 14 to remove the regulatory requirement that USCIS generally defer to an earlier approval when deciding a Form I-129 request involving the same parties and underlying facts. The proposal concerns the adjudication standard for covered nonimmigrant-worker petitions and is broader than H-1B alone. Comments are due November 13 before midnight Eastern Time. Publication does not itself change the current adjudication rule.

The proposed change would allow a fresh assessment of eligibility without treating the earlier approval as presumptively controlling. It would not prohibit USCIS from considering relevant prior approvals and supporting evidence. The current rule already contains exceptions to deference; those existing exceptions should not be presented as newly operative October requirements. For healthcare employers using affected nonimmigrant classifications, the practical question is how extension files document continuing eligibility rather than whether an earlier approval can simply be attached.

FDA announced October 16 support for forward compatibility in electronic Common Technical Document submissions. An application originally established in eCTD version 3.2.2 can use version 4.0 for subsequent submissions under the specified standards. This makes a transition pathway available rather than imposing an immediate universal migration. Applicable electronic-submission requirements, exemptions and waivers still need to be considered for each submission type.

A separate notice states that submissions with specified high-severity validation failures will be rejected beginning January 16, 2027. The cited version 3.2.2 identifiers are 2024 and 2025, which are validation identifiers rather than established release years. The notice also identifies eCTD4-084 and eCTD4-085 and regional identifiers US-eCTD4-561 through US-eCTD4-564 for version 4.0. The exact implementation and validation files must be matched to the submission pathway. FDA’s older general landing-page statement that forward compatibility was not yet available should not override the later October notice.

HHS and HRSA launched the Health Center Healthy Lifestyle Commitment on October 14. The voluntary initiative encourages health centers to integrate nutrition, physical activity, healthy sleep and prevention into everyday care. It also encourages use of patient education materials associated with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030, and resources on HRSA’s health-centers-and-nutrition webpage.

The announcement describes practical activities such as connecting patients with fresh-produce and community programs, training the prevention workforce and providing actionable information to families. It expressly states that participation establishes no new federal requirements or standards of care and that a center’s participation decision will not affect eligibility for or receipt of HRSA funding. Those qualifications are material: the initiative is a program option, rather than a new grant condition or mandatory clinical protocol.

HHS announced October 14 that it sent further requests to medical organizations concerning their positions on gender-related procedures for minors. The posted letters ask for a clear current position, identification of updates or corrections to guidance and educational content, and a concrete timeline for forthcoming changes. Recipients include the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Endocrine Society, WPATH and the American Academy of Pediatrics. HHS requests written responses within 10 business days.

The AMA letter describes an earlier December 30, 2025 request and states HHS had received no substantive response. The new letter presents the Department’s assessment of the evidence and its criticism of the organization’s position. Those statements should be attributed to HHS rather than presented as an independently established clinical consensus. The posted request does not itself adjudicate a violation, impose a generally applicable hospital compliance deadline or establish the legal status of separate federal funding restrictions mentioned in its background.

The October 16, 2026 California Notice Register publishes DTSC’s response denying as moot a California Retailers Association petition dated September 8. The petition requested permanent adoption of the federal Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals in 40 CFR sections 266.500–266.510. DTSC says it has evaluated the rule and already plans adoption through the Administrative Procedure Act process. The response is a petition decision announcing that intended rulemaking path, rather than a completed California adoption of all federal Subpart P provisions.

DTSC explains that authorized states must adopt federal changes that are more stringent than their existing programs, while less stringent changes need not be adopted. It also states that California’s program is more stringent and broader in several respects and that some pharmaceutical-rule provisions will be altered to align with state hazardous-waste requirements and other California law. The response supplies no final regulatory text, adoption date or new facility implementation deadline. Healthcare facilities and pharmacies therefore cannot treat the petition denial as permission to replace existing California waste procedures wholesale with the federal framework.

Cal/OSHA issued an October 15, 2026 notice proposing emergency amendments to title 8 sections 344, 344.1 and 344.2. Specified shop, field and resale inspection services under section 344(a), and permit inspections and qualifying follow-up inspections under section 344.1(a) and (b), would increase from $150 to $180 per hour. Processing each permit to operate under section 344.2(b) would increase from $45 to $55. The proposed text retains billing for travel time and upward rounding to quarter-hour increments.

The notice concerns covered tanks and boilers and distinguishes equipment exemptions from the Government Code section 6103 prohibition on charging these inspection and permit fees for equipment owned or operated by public entities. The proposed text retains the follow-up fee exception when safety-order requirements are met, and the Division notified, within 15 days of the compliance date on the preliminary order. Its existing penalty provisions concern fees unpaid within 60 days of the invoice date and equal 100 percent of the unpaid fee; these are not newly proposed penalty increases. Labor Code section 7721(e), quoted in the notice, exempts these emergency fee regulations from OAL review and approval and makes them effective immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. The notice supplies no completed filing date or public-comment closing date, so these documents establish a proposal without establishing that the higher charges were already effective.