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

Teleflora Delivery Service, Inc., the petitioner in P.S. Docket No. 1/206, has moved for reconsideration of a Postal Service Decision and Order issued September 25, 1974, upholding Respondent's proposed revocation of second class mail privileges previously in effect in regard to petitioner's publication Teleflora Spirit.

The referenced Decision and Order reached the result mentioned by reason of a stipulation entered into between the parties agreeing to be bound by the result reached on the periodicity issue in Postal Service Docket No. 1/167, Florists' Transworld Delivery Association. The issue in that case was decided adversely to Petitioner by the Administrative Law Judge, reversed by the former Judicial Officer on appeal, and, on Respondent's motion for reconsideration, that decision was reversed by the then Acting Judicial Officer with the result that the Initial Decision was upheld. At each step of the way Petitioner, ably represented by Counsel, was permitted to file Briefs. Petitioner contends that certain language in the Amended Postal Service Decision indicates that its Brief was not given proper consideration by the Acting Judicial Officer. Petitioner now asks the undersigned to reconsider the Amended Decision, as a matter of due process, and failing in that argument, as a matter of fairness under the inherent authority to reconsider and vacate prior erroneous decisions. Respondent objects on the basis that Teleflora has exhausted its rights to any further consideration.

The rule on motions for reconsideration simply states that within the specified time period either party may file a motion for reconsideration of a final agency decision. Quite clearly this process cannot be endless.

In the instant case the Petitioner filed a Brief and a Reply Brief in the first instance to persuade Judge Knight to its view. When the Initial Decision went adverse to it, it filed an Appeal Brief setting forth fully why it considered that decision erroneous. When Respondent moved for reconsideration after the Judicial Officer issued the Postal Service Decision on Appeal, Petitioner filed another comprehensive Brief setting forth its position why the publication under consideration should be found to meet the "periodical" test. Its principal contention in the present motion is not based upon any new argument but rather upon the arguments previously made and the further contention that these arguments were misunderstood and were not given thorough consideration by the Acting Judicial Officer in issuing the Amended Postal Service Decision. My review of the pertinent documents convinces me otherwise. Thus, the only reason for any reopening of the matter at this time would be to reconsider the merits a third time on appeal.

I perceive no sound basis for so doing and accordingly, Petitioner's motion to reopen the case for reconsideration on the merits is denied.