Bills, courts, and records. Your voice on the public ledger.

Rescission of Outdated Veterans Choice Program Regulations

Regulatory rule · Signed

Veterans Affairs Department

Effective Aug 27, 2026

This regulatory action removes from the Code of Federal Regulations the rules that were written specifically to implement the Veterans Choice Program, which was created by the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014. That original program allowed eligible veterans to receive care from non-VA providers under certain conditions. It was formally replaced by the Veterans Community Care Program under the VA MISSION Act of 2018, which took effect on June 6, 2019. Because the Veterans Choice Program no longer exists as an active program, the regulations governing it are considered obsolete. Keeping outdated regulations on the books can create confusion for veterans, providers, and VA administrators who might reference those rules. Rescinding them helps ensure the regulatory code accurately reflects current law and policy. Veterans who currently receive care outside of VA facilities do so under the Veterans Community Care Program, which has its own separate set of regulations. This rescission does not alter eligibility criteria, benefits, or access to care under the current program. No veterans are expected to lose access to services as a result of this action. From a procedural standpoint, this action is categorized as a final rule, though it is essentially administrative in nature. Agencies are generally required to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures even when removing outdated rules, ensuring transparency in the regulatory process. The VA's action is consistent with broader federal efforts to periodically review and eliminate unnecessary or superseded regulatory text. The overall impact of this action on veterans and the public is minimal in practical terms, since the program being deregulated ceased operations years ago. Its significance is primarily bureaucratic and administrative, contributing to a cleaner and more accurate regulatory framework for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Energy Conservation Program: Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment; Extension of Public Comment Period

Proposed rule · Signed

Energy Department

Effective Jul 7, 2026

The Department of Energy published a proposed rule on July 7, 2026, seeking public input on updates to its procedures and policies for developing energy conservation standards and test procedures for consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment. These standards govern the energy efficiency requirements for a wide range of products, from refrigerators and washing machines to commercial heating and cooling systems. The proposed rule would update the methodology DOE uses when evaluating whether to create or revise these standards. Following the initial publication, a coalition of trade organizations submitted a joint request on July 13, 2026, asking for the comment period to be extended to September 8, 2026. DOE reviewed the request and granted a partial extension of 15 days, setting the new deadline at August 21, 2026, rather than the full extension requested. This type of extension is common in federal rulemaking when stakeholders need additional time to prepare substantive technical and economic comments. The affected parties are broad and include manufacturers of consumer appliances and commercial equipment, trade associations, energy efficiency advocates, utilities, and individual consumers. Changes to DOE's rulemaking methodology could alter how stringently or how frequently new efficiency standards are set, with downstream effects on product costs, energy bills, and manufacturing decisions. The legal basis for DOE's energy conservation standards program is primarily the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended. DOE is required under that law to periodically review and update standards for covered products, and the procedures governing those reviews carry significant practical and legal weight for regulated industries. This action is procedural in nature, extending a comment deadline rather than finalizing any policy change. However, the underlying proposed rulemaking on DOE's methodology is substantively important, as it could influence the regulatory framework for energy standards for years to come. Interested parties have until August 21, 2026, to submit written comments through the federal rulemaking portal.

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

Proposed rule · Signed

Transportation Department

This proposed airworthiness directive (AD) from the FAA targets specific Boeing 737-8, 737-9, and 737-8200 airplanes, commonly known as the 737 MAX family. The action was triggered by a report indicating that certain passenger seat assemblies were not correctly installed in the seat tracks, which could create an unsafe condition if seats shift or detach during flight. The FAA is proposing mandatory detailed inspections of seat track fittings for both left and right side track-mounted passenger seat assemblies, followed by applicable corrective actions depending on what inspectors find. The legal basis for this action comes from the FAA's authority under Title 49 of the United States Code, which grants the agency broad power to regulate aviation safety and issue airworthiness directives to address unsafe conditions in aircraft. ADs are legally binding on aircraft operators and owners and are a standard tool the FAA uses to mandate safety corrections across an entire fleet when a systemic issue is identified. Airlines and operators who own or operate the affected Boeing models would be required to comply within a timeframe that will be specified in the final rule. The airlines most directly affected are U.S. carriers operating Boeing 737 MAX variants, though foreign operators flying these aircraft into U.S. airspace may also be subject to the directive. The costs of compliance would include inspection labor and any necessary corrective repairs or reinstallation of affected seat assemblies. Because this is a proposed rule, the public and aviation industry stakeholders have an opportunity to submit comments before the FAA finalizes the directive. While this directive addresses a relatively narrow mechanical issue compared to some broader aviation safety actions, it reflects the FAA's ongoing scrutiny of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft following years of elevated regulatory attention on this aircraft family. The inspection requirement is precautionary in nature, designed to catch and correct installation errors before they result in passenger injury or a more serious incident.

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

Proposed rule · Signed

Transportation Department

This proposed rule from the FAA seeks to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2024-22-01, which was previously issued to address safety concerns on Airbus Canada BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. These aircraft are operated by U.S. airlines and are part of the Airbus A220 family, formerly developed by Bombardier under the C Series program. The FAA has determined that the maintenance and inspection limitations established in the prior directive are no longer sufficient, and that newer or more restrictive airworthiness limitations must be incorporated into operator maintenance programs. The core requirement of this proposed AD is that operators revise their existing maintenance or inspection programs to reflect updated airworthiness limitations. These limitations govern how frequently certain components must be inspected, tested, or replaced. By mandating stricter schedules or procedures, the FAA aims to reduce the risk of in-service failures that could compromise flight safety. The prior AD's requirements would largely be continued, with the new rule layering on additional obligations. The legal basis for this action falls under the FAA's authority granted by the Federal Aviation Act and Title 49 of the U.S. Code, which empower the agency to issue airworthiness directives when an unsafe condition is found in aircraft operating in U.S. airspace. The FAA is required to publish proposed rules in the Federal Register and accept public comment before finalizing them, meaning airlines, manufacturers, and other stakeholders can submit input before the rule takes effect. The affected parties are primarily U.S. operators of the BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 aircraft. Several U.S. carriers fly the A220, and compliance with the final rule would require coordination between those airlines, their maintenance teams, and potentially Airbus Canada as the type certificate holder. Implementation timelines are typically specified in the final AD and often allow a defined number of flight hours or calendar days before compliance is mandatory. While this action does not ground any aircraft immediately, it signals ongoing regulatory attention to the A220 fleet. Proposed ADs of this nature are routine but important parts of the aviation safety system, ensuring that maintenance practices keep pace with evolving knowledge about aircraft performance and wear over time.

Medical Devices; Gastroenterology-Urology Devices; Classification of the Non-Medicated Topical Formulation for Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction

Regulatory rule · Signed

Health and Human Services Department

Effective Jul 27, 2026

This regulatory action establishes a formal device classification for non-medicated topical formulations designed to treat erectile dysfunction. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, medical devices are categorized into three classes based on risk level. Class I carries general controls, Class II adds special controls such as performance standards and post-market surveillance requirements, and Class III requires the most rigorous pre-market approval. By placing these topical formulations into Class II, the FDA is determining that the devices pose a moderate risk level that can be adequately managed through targeted special controls rather than requiring full pre-market approval. The 'special controls' referenced in the rule are specific regulatory requirements codified alongside the device classification. These controls typically include things like performance testing, labeling requirements, and biocompatibility standards that manufacturers must satisfy before marketing their products. The codification of these controls into federal regulations gives manufacturers a clear roadmap for bringing compliant products to market through the less burdensome 510(k) premarket notification pathway. This action primarily affects medical device manufacturers who produce or intend to produce non-medicated topical treatments for erectile dysfunction. It also affects healthcare providers who may recommend or prescribe these products and patients who use them. By lowering regulatory barriers compared to Class III classification, the FDA anticipates that more companies will enter this market, potentially increasing competition and patient access to treatment options. The legal basis for this action is the FDA's authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, specifically provisions governing the classification of medical devices. The FDA conducts a risk-benefit analysis and determines which class appropriately balances public safety with access to beneficial devices. Once this rule is finalized, it becomes part of the Code of Federal Regulations governing gastroenterology and urology devices. Manufacturers seeking to market these devices will need to demonstrate compliance with the established special controls before receiving authorization to sell their products.

Medical Devices; General Hospital and Personal Use Devices; Classification of the Active Noise Attenuation System for Infant Incubators

Regulatory rule · Signed

Health and Human Services Department

Effective Jul 27, 2026

Active noise attenuation systems for infant incubators are devices designed to reduce harmful noise levels inside incubators, which can negatively affect the hearing and neurological development of premature or vulnerable newborns. By classifying these devices as Class II under FDA regulations, manufacturers must comply with special controls, which may include performance testing, labeling requirements, and post-market surveillance, rather than the more burdensome Class III premarket approval process. The legal basis for this action comes from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which grants the FDA authority to classify medical devices into one of three classes based on the level of regulatory control necessary to ensure safety and effectiveness. Class I involves general controls, Class II adds special controls, and Class III requires the most stringent premarket approval. Moving a device to Class II signals that the FDA believes general controls alone are insufficient but that special controls can adequately manage risks. The primary parties affected include medical device manufacturers seeking to bring these noise reduction products to market, hospitals and neonatal intensive care units that use infant incubators, and ultimately the newborns and families who depend on safe incubator environments. Clinicians and hospital procurement teams will need to ensure any purchased devices meet the newly codified special controls. This classification order becomes effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Manufacturers of existing or new active noise attenuation systems for infant incubators will need to comply with the special controls identified in the order. The codified language will be incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations, providing a permanent regulatory framework. From a policy perspective, this action reflects a broader FDA effort to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining safety standards. By establishing a clear Class II pathway, the agency may encourage more companies to develop and market these devices, potentially increasing availability in neonatal care settings across the country.

Reducing Barriers to Medical Use Licensing

Proposed rule · Signed

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

This proposed rule from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeks to amend regulations governing the medical use of byproduct material, which includes radioactive substances used in diagnostic imaging and cancer treatments such as PET scans and radiation therapy. The core goal is to reduce prescriptive requirements that the agency views as outdated, replacing them with more flexible, modern standards that can better accommodate new and emerging medical technologies without compromising patient or public safety. The legal basis for this rulemaking is Executive Order 14300, issued by President Trump, which directed the NRC to conduct a comprehensive review and revision of its regulatory framework. This places the proposed rule within a broader administrative effort to reduce regulatory burden across federal agencies, particularly in the nuclear sector. The NRC operates under authority granted by the Atomic Energy Act, which gives it jurisdiction over byproduct materials used in medicine. The primary groups affected include hospitals, cancer treatment centers, nuclear medicine clinics, and the physicians and technologists who use radioactive materials in patient care. The proposal would ease training and experience requirements for medical authorized users, which could make it easier for qualified professionals to obtain or maintain licensing. This may expand the pool of practitioners eligible to administer certain nuclear medicine procedures. For patients, the changes could mean faster access to cutting-edge nuclear medicine treatments, as healthcare facilities would face fewer bureaucratic hurdles when adopting new technologies. Supporters argue this modernization is long overdue and will benefit patient care. Critics may raise concerns about whether relaxing training requirements or oversight standards could compromise radiation safety for patients, workers, or the public. The rule is currently in the proposed stage, meaning the public and stakeholders have an opportunity to submit comments before any final rule is issued. The NRC is also revising associated guidance documents in parallel. The timeline for finalization will depend on the volume and nature of public comment, as well as any additional agency review required.

Pacific Halibut Fisheries of the West Coast; 2026 Catch Sharing Plan; Inseason Action

Regulatory rule · Signed

Commerce Department

Effective Jul 24, 2026

This regulatory action is an inseason adjustment to the 2026 Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan for IPHC regulatory Area 2A, which covers the U.S. West Coast. NMFS has the authority to make these kinds of inseason changes to ensure that fishing opportunity is maximized within the bounds of pre-established annual catch limits. By adding fishing dates in August and September, the agency is responding to available quota that has not yet been harvested in the Columbia River and Washington coastal subareas. The legal basis for this action stems from the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which governs federal fisheries management in U.S. waters, as well as the regulations established annually by the International Pacific Halibut Commission, a bilateral U.S.-Canada treaty body. The Pacific Fishery Management Council sets the domestic allocation of the Area 2A catch limit among different user groups, including recreational and commercial fishers, and NMFS implements those decisions. The anglers most directly affected are recreational halibut fishers operating out of Washington State ports and along the Columbia River, which straddles the Oregon-Washington border. These added dates give those anglers more chances to fish for halibut during the late summer season, which can be economically significant for charter boat operators and fishing tourism businesses in the region. In terms of implementation, this inseason action takes effect on a short timeline, consistent with how inseason adjustments typically work. NMFS publishes these notices to inform the public and fishing industry promptly so that anglers and charter operators can plan accordingly. No significant environmental review is required for this type of action because it operates within the scope of the already-approved 2026 management plan. This action has a relatively narrow geographic and sectoral impact, applying only to recreational halibut fishing in specific Pacific Northwest subareas. It does not change overall catch limits but rather redistributes fishing opportunity across more calendar days to help fully utilize the existing allocation.