In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 MID-SOUTH PHARMACEUTICALS
 P. O. Box 584
 Hixson, TN 37343

 BRANT PHARMACAL
 P. O. Box 992
 Toledo, OH 43697

 MIDWESTERN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
 P. O. Box 188
 Janesville, WI 53545

 HEALTH RESEARCH
 P. O. Box 11063
 Indianapolis, IN 46201

 CLIFTON PHARMACAL WHOLESALE, INC.
 P. O. Box 43
 Milroy, PA 17063

 P.S. Docket No. 11/113;
 P.S. Docket No. 11/139;
 P.S. Docket No. 12/35;
 P.S. Docket No. 12/38;
 P.S. Docket No. 12/39;  

 01/15/82

 Cohen, James A.  

Gulf Coast and Great Plans Legal Foundation (hereafter Gulf Coast) has appealed from an Order of an Administrative Law Judge denying it smotion to intervene in the captioned proceedings. Gulf Coast alleges that these proceedings should be guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under Rule 24(a) it is entitled to intervention as a matter of right or under Rule 24(b) it should be allowed permissive intervention.

The parties to these proceedings were given an opportunity to file a reply to the Gulf Coast appeal. Complainant took no position. One of the Respondents, Clifton Pharmacal Wholesale, Inc., filed a reply opposing the interventioin.

In the initial Order denying the Motion to Intervene the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have not been made applicable to proceedings under 39 U.S.C. § 3005 and the interests described in the motion are adequately represented by Complainant, the United States Postal Service. While denying active intervention, the Administrative Law Judge permitted Gulf Coast to file an amicus brief. In a Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of the Motion to Intervene, Gulf Coast argued that its motion had not been opposed and htat its evidence would address the severity of the sanction which could be imposed on Respondents. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Motion for Reconsideration on the grounds that no evidence which Gulf Coast might introduce could expand or alter in any way the extent of the recommendation for issuance of false representation orders if he found in favor of Complainant.

Gulf Coast's arguments that the Administrative Law Judge erred and that it should be allowed to intervene in these proceedings are not persuasive. Gulf Coast has not established that its interest in these proceedings differs from the public interest and that the public interest is not adequately represented by Complainant. Neither has it shown other considerations which warrant the exercise of discretion to allow it to intervene in these proceedings.

Accordingly, the orders of the Administrative Law Judge are affirmed and the appeal from the denial of the Motion to Intervene is denied.