Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, (FLPMA), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Needles Field Office (NFO), Needles, California intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider the effects of the proposed Castle Mountain Mine Phase II Expansion Project in San Bernardino County, California and Clark County, Nevada. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping period to solicit public comments and identify issues under NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS. The BLM requests that the public submit your comments concerning the scope of the analysis, potential alternatives, and identification of relevant information, and studies by November 19, 2025. To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider comments, please ensure your comments are received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period.
You may submit comments related to the Castle Mountain Mine Phase II Expansion Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at
Castle Mountain Project Manager, telephone 760-326-7000; address: Bureau of Land Management Needles Field Office, 1303 U.S. 95, Needles, CA 92363. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
The BLM will consider authorizing an amendment to Castle Mountain Venture's (CMV) mine plan of operations to address the proposed expansion of surface disturbance (Phase II Expansion) on public lands (Proposed Action) at the Castle Mountain Mine (CMM). The Project is located approximately 60 miles south of Las Vegas, Nevada, and 40 miles northwest of the BLM office in Needles, California. The proposed expansion of the mine pits, overburden sites, and heap leach pad and installation of the associated pipeline and powerline would disturb an additional 1,800 acres of BLM-managed public land for a total project disturbance of 3,294 acres.
The BLM's purpose is to respond to CMV's request to amend the mine plan of operations and authorize the Utilities Plan of Development for CMM and to analyze the environmental effects associated with the proponent's Proposed Action and alternatives to the Proposed Action, consider reasonable alternatives, and develop and consider mitigation when necessary to mitigate environmental effects.
The need for the action is established by the BLM's responsibility under the Mining Law of 1872, Section 302 of FLPMA and the BLM regulations at 43 CFR part 3809 and 43 CFR part 2800. These statutes and regulations set forth the BLM's responsibility to ensure that operations under the Mining Law of 1872 prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.
The Proposed Action would consist of an expansion of CMV's authorized plan of operations for the CMM under the regulations found at 43 CFR part 3800, subpart 3809. The Proposed Action would also include the authorization of rights-of-way for an underground water pipeline and overhead powerline under the regulations found at 43 CFR part 2800.
The expansion would extend the mine life of CMM by approximately 30 years and operations would effectively quadruple the annual mining rate at the mine. An underground water pipeline and overhead powerline are needed to meet the increased groundwater and power demands of the proposed expansion. The proposed expansion of the mine pits, overburden sites, heap leach pad and installation of the associated pipeline, powerline, and onsite power generation would disturb an additional 1,800 acres of BLM-managed public land.
Under the National Park Service Lands Alternative, the Proposed Action would remain the same as with the exception that the utilities corridor would follow the road route across a ~1,000-foot section of land within the Mojave National Preserve that is currently managed by the National Park Service.
Under the no action alternative, the BLM would not approve the proposed amendment to the plan of operations, and the activities described in the Proposed Action would not occur. The proposed expansion areas, underground water pipeline, and overhead powerline would not be constructed and operations under the currently authorized mine plan would continue.
The BLM welcomes comments on all preliminary alternatives as well as suggestions for additional alternatives.
The Project's proximity to Castle Mountains National Monument and Mojave National Preserve has raised concerns that increased visual and noise disturbances from mining construction and operations might affect recreational and traditional use, cultural sites, seeps and springs, and biological resources in the area. While there are concerns over habitat loss and impacts to native vegetation, the mine continues to provide guzzlers for wildlife and has a rare native plant nursery. The mine is recognized for its successful reclamation methods and hosts on-site research dedicated exclusively to cultivating vegetation native to the Mojave Desert.
In addition to the requested authorization to perform mineral extraction under a mining plan of operations, other Federal, state, and local authorizations would be required for the project. These include authorizations under the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and other laws and regulations determined to be applicable to the project.
The BLM will provide opportunity for public participation consistent with the NEPA process. The Draft EIS is anticipated to be available for public review spring 2026 and the Final EIS is anticipated to be released in summer 2026 with a Record of Decision fall 2026.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping period. The BLM will hold one in-person public scoping meeting. The specific date and time of this scoping meeting will be announced at least 15 days in advance on the BLM website
Ron Nuckles, Field Manager, Needles Field Office, California Desert District, Bureau of Land Management.
The BLM's potential decision relative to the proposed amendment as informed by the EIS includes: (1) approval of the proposed Castle Mountain Mine Amendment to Plan of Operations Project as submitted; (2) approval of the proposed Castle Mountain Mine Amendment to Plan of Operations Project subject to changes or conditions, as analyzed in the EIS, that the BLM deems necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands; or (3) denial of the proposed Castle Mountain Mine Amendment to Plan of Operations Project if the BLM determines that the proposal would result in unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA process to help support compliance with applicable procedural requirements under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), including public involvement requirements of Section 106. The information about historic and cultural resources and threatened and endangered species within the area potentially affected by the proposed project will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM Manual Section 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, state, and local agencies, along with Indian Tribal Nations and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
On May 22, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D., of Lawton, Oklahoma (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1 at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration, No. FR0228747, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Oklahoma, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the OSC, on December 5, 2024, the Oklahoma State
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.”
With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
Pursuant to Oklahoma's Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, “[e]very person who manufactures, distributes, dispenses, prescribes, administers or uses for scientific purposes any controlled dangerous substance within or into this state . . . shall obtain a registration issued by the Director of the [OBNDD], in accordance with rules promulgated by the Director.” Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 2-302(A) (2024).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Oklahoma because his OBNDD registration is inactive. As discussed above, a person must hold a valid OBNDD registration to dispense a controlled substance in Oklahoma, subject to limited exceptions not applicable here. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Oklahoma, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FR0228747 issued to Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D., for additional registration in Oklahoma. This Order is effective November 19, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on October 9, 2025, by Administrator Terrance Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On May 22, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Ali Elhorr, M.D. (Applicant), of Dearborn, Michigan. Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the denial of Applicant's application for DEA registration, Control No. W22137646C, alleging that Applicant is mandatorily excluded from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a) and that Applicant materially falsified his application for registration.
On July 7, 2025, the Government submitted an RFAA requesting that the Agency issue a default final order denying Applicant's application. RFAA, at 1, 5. After carefully reviewing the entire record and conducting the analysis as set forth in detail below, the Agency finds that Applicant is in default, finds that Applicant is
Under 21 CFR 1301.43, an applicant entitled to a hearing who fails to file a timely hearing request “within 30 days after the date of receipt of the [OSC] . . . shall be deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and to be in default” unless “good cause” is established for the failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a), (c)(1). In the absence of a demonstration of good cause, an applicant who fails to timely file an answer also is “deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and to be in default.” 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2). Unless excused, a default constitutes “an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].” 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
The OSC notified Applicant of his right to file a written request for hearing and answer, and that if he failed to file such a request and answer, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
The Agency finds that, in light of Applicant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, Applicant admits that in September 2016, he pled guilty to health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347. RFAAX 1, at 2. As a result of Applicant's conviction,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5), the Agency
Here, the Agency finds substantial record evidence
The Agency finds that, in light of Applicant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, Applicant is deemed to have admitted to each of the following facts. On October 19, 2022, Applicant submitted an application for DEA registration as a practitioner in Schedules II through V. RFAAX 1, at 2. The application form contained the following liability question: “[h]as the applicant ever been . . . excluded or directed to be excluded from participation in a medicare or state health care program, or [is] any such action pending?”
A DEA registration may be denied, suspended, or revoked upon a finding that the applicant or registrant materially falsified any application filed pursuant to or required by the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1).
The United States Supreme Court's decision in
First, the Government must prove that the applicant or registrant submitted an application for registration pursuant to the CSA.
Second, the Government must prove that the application contained a false
Third, the Government must prove that the applicant or registrant knew or should have known that the statement is false and/or that the omitted information existed and the application required its disclosure.
Fourth, the Government must prove that the false statement and/or required but omitted information is “material.” The
The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR 1301.44. Here, the Agency finds that the Government's clear, unequivocal, and convincing record evidence presents a
In light of Applicant's default admissions, the Agency finds clear, unequivocal, and convincing record evidence of the following facts. On October 19, 2022, Applicant submitted an application for DEA registration. RFAAX 1, at 2. The application required Applicant to state whether or not he has ever been excluded from participation in Federal or state health care programs, to which Applicant responded “no” despite having been excluded from all Federal health care programs by HHS/OIG.
In addition, this falsification was material. Applicant's provision of false information in response to Liability Question 1 on his application deprived the Agency of the legally relevant information needed to make an informed decision regarding his application.
As a result of this established violation, the Agency finds that the Government has established a
Where, as here, the Government has presented a
Specifically, the Agency requires the practitioner to accept responsibility for his or her violation.
Here, Applicant failed to answer the allegations contained in the OSC and did not otherwise avail himself of the opportunity to refute the Government's
Further, the interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of denial. Applicant's conduct in this matter concerns the CSA's “strict requirements regarding registration” and, therefore, goes to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.”
Accordingly, the Agency will order the denial of Applicant's application.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824, I hereby deny the pending application for a DEA Certificate of Registration, Control No. W22137646C, submitted by Ali Elhorr, M.D., as well as any other pending applications of Ali Elhorr, M.D., for additional registration in Michigan. This Order is effective November 19, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on October 9, 2025, by Administrator Terrance Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On April 2, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Chantal F. Nouvellon, D.O. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration Nos. BN5595775 and FN5439016, alleging that Registrant's registrations should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to handle controlled substances in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, the states in which [she is] registered with DEA.”
The OSCs notified Registrant of her right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed to be admitted. According to the OSC, on or about October 17, 2024, Registrant's Massachusetts medical license was suspended. RFAAX 1, at 2. According to Massachusetts online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,
Further, according to the OSC, on Decemeber 20, 2024, Registrant's New Hampshire medical license was also suspended.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Massachusetts law, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or . . . to the agent of an ultimate user . . . by a practitioner or pursuant to the order of a practitioner, including the prescribing and administering of a controlled substance and the packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary for such delivery.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 1 (2025). Further, a “practitioner” is “[a] physician . . . or other person registered to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or use in teaching or chemical analysis, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in the commonwealth.”
According to New Hampshire law, “dispense” means “to distribute, leave with, give away, dispose of, deliver, or sell one or more doses of and shall include the transfer of more than a single dose of a medication . . . ” and “prescribe” means “order or designate a remedy or any preparation containing controlled drugs.” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 318-B:1 VIII, XXVII (2025). Further, a “practitioner” means “any person who is lawfully entitled to prescribe, administer, dispense or distribute controlled drugs to patients” and a “prescription” means “an oral, written, or facsimile or electronically transmitted order for any controlled drug or preparation issued by a licensed practitioner to be compounded and dispensed by a pharmacist and delivered to a patient for a medicinal or therapeutic purpose arising from a practitioner-patient relationship.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant is not currently licensed to practice medicine in either Massachusetts or New Hampshire. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to handle controlled substances in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in either Massachusetts or New Hampshire, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration in either jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's respective DEA registration in each jurisdiction be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificates of Registration Nos. BN5595775 and FN5439016 issued to Chantal F. Nouvellon, D.O. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Chantal F. Nouvellon, D.O., to renew or modify these registrations, as well as any other pending application of Chantal F. Nouvellon, D.O., for additional registration in either Massachusetts or New Hampshire. This Order is effective November 19, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on October 9, 2025, by Administrator Terrance Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On May 23, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to James Orrington, II, D.D.S., of Chicago, Illinois (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration, No. BO7484811, alleging that Registrant is “currently without authority to . . . handle controlled substances in the State of Illinois, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the OSC, Registrant's Illinois dental and controlled substance licenses were suspended on May 23, 2024. RFAAX 1, at 1-2;
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General may suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Illinois statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a prescriber, including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.” 720 ILCS 570/102(p) (2025). Further, a “practitioner” means a “dentist . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise lawfully permitted by . . . [Illinois] to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant is not a currently licensed practitioner in Illinois. As discussed above, a dentist must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Illinois. Thus, because Registrant's dental and controlled substance licenses are suspended in Illinois and, therefore, he is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in Illinois, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration in Illinois. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BO7484811 issued to James Orrington, II, D.D.S. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of James Orrington, II, D.D.S., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of James Orrington, II, D.D.S., for additional registration in Illinois. This Order is effective November 19, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on October 9, 2025, by Administrator Terrance Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of meeting; cancellation.
On October 9, 2025, DOT published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(a)(2), that a meeting will be held at the United States Treasury Department, 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC on November 4, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., of the following debt management advisory committee: Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee.
At this meeting, the Treasury is seeking advice from the Committee on topics related to the economy, financial markets, Treasury financing, and debt management. Following the working session, the Committee will present a written report of its recommendations. The meeting will be closed to the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d) and Public Law 103-202, § 202(c)(1)(B) (31 U.S.C. 3121 note).
This notice shall constitute my determination, pursuant to the authority placed in heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d) and vested in me by Treasury Department Order No. 101-05, that the meeting will consist of discussions and debates of the issues presented to the Committee by the Secretary of the Treasury and the making of recommendations of the Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to Public Law 103-202, § 202(c)(1)(B).
Thus, this information is exempt from disclosure under that provision and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3)(B). In addition, the meeting is concerned with information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest requires that such meetings be closed to the public because the Treasury Department requires frank and full advice from representatives of the financial community prior to making its final decisions on major financing operations. Historically, this advice has been offered by debt management advisory committees established by the several major segments of the financial community. When so utilized, such a committee is recognized to be an advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 3.
Although the Treasury's final announcement of financing plans may not reflect the recommendations provided in reports of the Committee, premature disclosure of the Committee's deliberations and reports would be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in the securities market. Thus, this meeting falls within the exemption covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A).
The Office of Debt Management is responsible for maintaining records of debt management advisory committee meetings and for providing annual reports setting forth a summary of Committee activities and such other matters as may be informative to the public consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. 552(b). The Designated Federal Officer or other responsible agency official who may be contacted for additional information is Fred Pietrangeli, Director for Office of Debt Management (202) 622-1876.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10, that the Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans, previously scheduled to be held on October 21 and October 22, 2025,
For more information, please contact Mr. Joshua Mathis, Designated Federal Officer, at 313-310-3891 or via email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10, that the Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials, previously scheduled to be held on October 28 and October 29, 2025,
For more information, please contact Ms. Faith Hopkins, Designated Federal Officer, at 202-603-4499 or via email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10., that the Veterans Rural Health Advisory Committee previously scheduled to be held on October 29, 2025,
For more information, please contact Mr. Peter Kaboli, Designated Federal Officer, at (319) 338-0581 x633863 or via email at
(a)
(b)
(c)
(b) This order does not limit or prohibit the appointment or hiring of any other non-career employees or officials if approved by an agency head appointed by the President or another official appointed by the President.
(c) This order does not limit or prohibit any appointment or hiring specifically approved by the head of an executive department, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 101. OPM may also authorize the head of an independent establishment, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 104, to use this exception.
(d) This order does not limit or prohibit the hiring of personnel where such a limit or prohibition would conflict with applicable law.
(e) The Director of OPM may grant appropriate exemptions from this order. Exemptions previously granted by OPM under the Presidential Memoranda of January 20, 2025 (Hiring Freeze), and July 7, 2025 (Ensuring Accountability and Prioritizing Public Safety in Federal Hiring), shall remain in effect unless withdrawn by OPM.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) Contracting outside the Federal Government to circumvent the intent of this order is prohibited.
(d) This order does not prohibit making reallocations or reassignments to meet the highest priority needs; maintain essential services; and protect national security, homeland security, and public safety.
(e) This order shall not adversely impact the provision of Social Security, Medicare, or veterans' benefits.
(f) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(g) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(h) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by OPM.