In the Matter of the Petition by	) May 7, 1976
		    			)
 PREDICASTS, INC. 			)
 200 University Circle Research Center 	)
 11001 Cedar Avenue 			)
 Cleveland, Ohio 44106 			) P.S. Docket No. 3/66
 				   	)
 Revocation of Second-Class Mail 	)
 Privileges for "F & S INDEX OF 	)
 CORPORATIONS AND INDUSTRIES" 		)
 
 APPEARANCES FOR PETITIONER:   		Kimber E. Vought, Esq.
					Sterling H. Schoen, Jr., Esq.
					Robert M. Wurzman, Esq.
					Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis
					Washington, D.C.
					Ascherman, Barrisch, Kreinberg &
					Wurzman
					Cleveland, Ohio

 APPEARANCES FOR RESPONDENT:
 					Michael J. Vandamm, Esq.
 					Law Department
					United States Postal Service
					Washington, D.C.
 Lussier, Edward F.  

This proceeding is before the undersigned on appeal from an Initial Decision of the Chief Administrative Law Judge upholding the revocation of second-class mail privileges for the subject publication. Petitioner separates its formal exceptions to the Initial Decision into seven parts. The first six it combines into one basic issue and argument relating to whether the publication is a "periodical publication" within the meaning of the postal law. The seventh exception relates to the second basic issue and argument raised by Petitioner as to whether the revocation action was based upon unpublished standards, and was unauthorized and constitutionally invalid. The arguments made on appeal are, in large part, the same arguments made prior to, and given consideration in, the Initial Decision.

The basic factual findings to which Petitioner takes exception in the first six exceptions, which combine Petitioner's disagreement with both fact and law, are the findings that its publications lacks articles as that term is commonly understood and that its publication constitutes a guide reference or index to articles in source journals or newspapers. The Initial Decision adequately covers the points but for ease of reference there is attached hereto, as Appendix A, a copy of the first page of Joint Exhibit 1 which illustrates the problem. The record is more than ample to support the propriety of these findings of fact.

Petitioner's major arguments on the "periodical" question are legal arguments raising contentions essentially similar to those raised, and rejected, in Institute for Scientific Information, Inc., P.S. Docket Nos. 2/60 et al (1975). Petitioner's contentions would abolish in effect the definition of a periodical publication laid down in Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, and substitute in its place a test of "inherent periodicity." The disposition of these contentions in the Initial Decision finds full justification in Institute for Scientific Information, Inc., supra, and the cases cited therein.

etitioner's contention that the standard used in reaching the judgment that its publication is not a "periodical publication" within the meaning of the postal laws is constitutionally invalid is primarily an attack upon the Houghton v. Payne standard. This standard has been applied consistently over the years in decisions by the Administrative Law Judges and the Judicial Officer of the Postal Service, and its predecessor, the Post Office Department, in second-class mail proceedings as indicated in the cases cited in the Amended Postal Service Decision in Florists' Transworld Delivery Association, P.S. Docket No. 1/167 (1974) and Shepard's Citations, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 1/88 (1974). There is nothing in either the record, or the citations relied upon by Petitioner, which would indicate that Petitioner was in any way deprived of due process and the Chief Administrative Law Judge's conclusion in this regard must be upheld.

Petitioner's exceptions on appeal have been given full consideration in light of the record, the law, and the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Decision. The exceptions are found to be without merit and are accordingly disallowed. The Initial Decision is hereby affirmed.