In the Matter of the Petition by                                )
                                                                               )
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY                                 )
Washington, D.C. 20016                                        )
                                                                               )    P.S. Docket No. 4/7
                                                                               )
                                                                               )
Proposed Revocation of Second-Class                 )
Mail Privileges for "THE AMERICAN                        )
UNIVERSITY BULLETIN"                                         )

Lussier, Edward F.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of the final Postal Service Decision rearguing the points raised before Judge Duvall and on appeal from his Initial Decision. Petitioner's arguments have been considered and do not support reversal in part or in whole of the Postal Service Decision. However, limited comment on two aspects raised in the motion is considered appropriate. The motion states that the Initial Decision as sustained by the Judicial Officer concedes that ". . . a publication is a periodical within the meaning of the Postal laws and regulations if it disseminates information of a public character and if the nature of that information is a changing one" (Motion page 3). The above quotation attributed by Petitioner to Judge Duvall is not a statement of Judge Duvall's holding but rather is a paraphrasing by him of Petitioner's position since the sentence omits the first four words which read as follows: "The Petitioner insists that". Moreover, this sentence is followed by the following two sentences in the Initial Decision: "This has never been the criterion followed by the Postal Service. It is correct so far as it goes, but it is not complete because it leaves out certain elements of the Houghton definition." Petitioner also attempts to distinguish the conclusion that the decision in Teleflora, Inc. v. USPS, U.S.D.C. D.C. Civil Action No. 75-228, reaffirms Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, but its argument is not persuasive. It also seems to raise in paragraph 4 an additional exception that the action of the Postal Service in this case is rule making rather than an adjudication process. Such an argument was made and rejected in the University of Oregon, P.S. Docket No. 3/110, (1976). Petitioner's arguments on motion for reconsideration have been considered and the Postal Service Decision is hereby reaffirmed.