Appeal of P.S. Docket No. 3/143 -- GEORGE W. SCHULTZ


 In the Matter of the Petition by

 GEORGE W. SCHULTZ
 40 Main Street
 Butler, New Jersey 07405

 Proposed Revocation of Second-Class Mail Privileges for
 "WANAQUE BULLETIN"; "BULET ARGUS"; "KINNELON TIMES";
 "NORTH JERSEY TIMES"; "BLOOMINGDALE ARGUS"; "RIVERDALE BULLETIN";
 "POMPTON LAKES BULLETIN" and "OAKLAND BULLETIN"

 P.S. Docket No. 3/143

 07/16/75

 Lussier, Edward F.  

 APPEARANCES:
 George W. Schultz, pro se, Petitioner
 Arthur S. Cahn, Esq.;
 Law Department, United States Postal Service,
 Washington, D.C. 20260 for Respondent

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

This case involves the proposed revocation of second-class mail privileges for the above-referenced publications published by George W. Shultz, the Petitioner herein. An Initial Decision was rendered in this case by Chief Administrative Law Judge William A. Duvall and the Petitioner has filed a timely appeal from that decision in accordance with the applicable Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. § 954.20.

The Initial Decision found that as to all of the publications involved, the Petitioner, in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3685 and implementing Postal Service regulations, has failed to furnish the Postal Service the circulation records necessary for a determination as to whether the several publications qualify for retention of second-class privileges. It further found that as to four of the publications, namely, the Wanaque Bulletin, the Bloomingdale Argus, the Pompton lakes Bulletin and the Oakland Bulletin, there is no known office of publication within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. § 4354(a)(2) as embodied in Section 132.222 of the Postal Service Manual.

The Petitioner is no newcomer to these requirements and the consequences of failure to comply. He has been involved in revocation proceedings in the past and, as in the instant proceeding, has been treated with leniency, in that every effort has been made to give him the opportunity of coming into compliance with the requirements. See, e.g., George. Schultz, P.S. Docket No. 2/111; Times Herald, P.S. Docket Nos. 90 and 156; Ringwood Bulletin, P.S.Docket No. 171. The amount of time which Petitioner was given in which to bring himself into compliance in the instant case was over 15 months and he has not done so.

There is in this record absolutely no showing of any valid excuse why Petitioner has not maintained the simple records required by law. However, that he has not done so is clear from the record. Likewise, that he has not maintained known offices of publication in the four stated instances is also clear. The evidence produced by the Petitioner at the hearing is inadequate to establish that Petitioner has complied with these relatively simple and reasonable requirements. It is, simply stated, both too little and too late.

CONCLUSION

While Petitioner has not taken specific exceptions as such to the Initial Decision as required by § 954.20, to the extent that its appeal indicates differences of opinion with the Initial Decision and such differences of opinion may be construed to be exceptions, they are disallowed. The Initial Decision properly sustained the revocation and it is hereby affirmed.