In the Matter of the Petitions by	) December 12, 1974
					)
 TELEFLORA DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. 	)
 900 North Sepulveda Boulevard 		) P.S. Docket No. 1/206
 El Segundo, California 90245 		)
 (Formerly Telepublications, Inc.	)
				    	)
 Proposed Annulment of Second-Class 	)
 Mail Privileges for "TELEFLORA 	)
 SPIRIT" 				)
					)
 FLORAFAX DELIVERY, INC. 		)
 Box 9 					)
 Leachville, Arkansas 72438 		) P.S. Docket No. 1/207
				    	)
 Proposed Annulment of Second-Class 	)
 Mail Privileges for "FLORAFACTS" 	)

 Lussier, Edward F.

Respondent has filed a motion to remand Postal Service Docket Nos. 1/206 and 1/207 to the Office of Administrative Law Judges for hearing on the issues of whether the publications, Teleflora Spirit and Florafacts, are designed primarily for advertising purposes. The stated justification for the remand is the following language in Administrative Law Judge Knight's order of January 11, 1973, that --

"It further appearing, That the agreement to be bound by the decision on the issue of whether the publications are periodicals is based on a proviso that a hearing would be held on the other issues in P.S. Docket Nos. 1/206 and 1/207 after the final decision on the 'periodical' issue is reached."

The Petitioner objects to such a remand and points to the next following paragraph of that same order which states:

"It further appearing, That the stipulation may result in substantial savings of time in that either (1) no hearing will be necessary in P.S. Docket Nos. 1/206 and 1/207 or (2) the time necessary for such a hearing will be lessened". (Emphasis supplied)

The referenced order accepted a stipulation of the parties executed on January 4, 1973. That stipulation contains the following pertinent language in paragraph 4 thereof:

" * * * It is expressly agreed and understood that, as to all such other issues in PS Docket Nos. 1/206 and 1/207, the parties do not waive their rights to a separate hearing on such issues, it being specifically contemplated by all the undersigned parties that a hearing will be held on such other issues, should there be a determination by the Administrative Law Judge or the Judicial Officer that the 'FTD News' is a 'periodical publication.'" (Emphasis supplied)

It appears clear from the above that a remand for administrative hearing on the advertising issue was not contemplated should a decision be rendered in favor of the Postal Service on the periodicity issue. Further support for this view is to be found in the explanation of the stipulation agreement given to Judge Knight in a prehearing conference on January 4, 1973, in which the following was said:

"MR. MAY: * * * This agreement and stipulation further contemplates that the remaining issues in Dockets 206 and 207 will not be set down for hearing until after there is a determination in the FTD case, Docket 167, on the question of periodicity. At such time, if there is a determination that as a matter of law the FTD News is a periodical publication within the meaning of the statute and regulations, then the publications of Teleflora Spirit and Florafax are also periodical publications as a matter of law.

"It would then be necessary to proceed to a hearing on the remaining issues in Dockets 206 and 207.

"On the other hand, if there was a determination as a matter of law that the FTD News is now (sic) a periodical publication and, therefore, of course, binding finding that Teleflora Spirit and Florafax were also not periodical publications, then it would not be necessary to proceed to a hearing on the remaining issues, since that ground alone would be sufficient basis to revoke the second class privileges of Teleflora Spirit and Florafax.

"Mr. Cahn has agreed to this stipulation and to that procedure. Mr. Biolchini has likewise agreed to that procedure."

* * * * *

"MR. CAHN: Mr. May stated everything accurately and precisely and I cannot add anything to it. I am in agreement." (Transcript, pp. 50, 51, 52)

In view of the stipulation and in the absence of a showing of good cause for such a remand, the motion to remand is denied. However, jurisdiction of the matter is retained for such further action, in connection with the advertising issue, as may later appear appropriate should future proceedings, if any, in a court of competent jurisdiction so warrant.