In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 NEW GENERATION CALIFORNIA PACIFIC RESEARCH, INC.
 P. O. Box 22759
 at Sacramento, CA 95822-0759

 and
 P. O. Box 2570
 at Sparks, NV 89431-2570

 P.S. Docket No. 11/152;  
 
 09/25/84
 
 Cohen, James A.  
 
 APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT:
 JamesA. Harbin, Esq.
 Thomas A. Ziebarth, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-1112

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Jay H. Geller, Esq.
 Geller and Bozeman
 2049 Century Park West
 Suite 1200
 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3130

By application filed August 13, 1984, Respondent requests that this proceeding be reopened to "reexamine the jurisdiction of the Postal Service over the Respondent's activities on the ground that the Respondent has not been engaged in soliciting orders for its product via mail order since July, 1983" and that False Representation Order Nos. 83-85 and 84-16 be revoked. No other reason is offered, nor have any facts been alleged, to support the ground asserted.

To warrant revocation of False Representation Orders issued pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3005, the reasons for issuing the Orders must no longer exist so the public will be protected from the continuation of the scheme. Therefore, there must be a showing that the person is no longer engaged "in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mail by means of false representations," within the meaning of the statute as implemented by the issuance of the False Representation Orders. Cf., Donaldson v. Read Magazine, Inc., 333 U.S. 178 (1948); Kurzon v. United States, 539 F.2d 788 (1st Cir. 1976); Neher v. Harwood, 128 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 659;

Institute for Weight Control, Inc. v. Klassen, 348 F. Supp. 1304 (D.N.J. 1972), aff'd without opinion, 474 F.2d 1338 (3d Cir. 1973); George M. Ernst, Jr., P.S. Docket No. 13/88 (P.S.D. on Motion to Revoke, May 1, 1984); Rejuvnir, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 3/105 (P.S.D. on Motion for Recon., Jan. 30, 1975). Respondent has made no showing that the false representations have ceased, and that the "scheme" is not being continued.

The only alleged changed circumstance is that Respondent has not engaged in soliciting orders for its products via mail order since July 1983. This allegation was raised and discussed in the Postal Service Decision on Petition for Supplemental Orders, dated March 8, 1984. The decision determined that Respondent continued to engage in a scheme and the Postal Service continued to have jurisdiction to issue the orders pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3005. In requesting a re-examination of this jurisdiction issue, Respondent, in the guise of its application for revocation, essentially is seeking reconsideration of that decision.

A motion to reconsider the decision should have been filed within 10 days of the decision and accompanied by a "brief clearly setting forth the points of fact and of law relied upon in support of said motion," as required by 39 C.F.R. § 952.27. Appellant's motion is untimely, points to no errors of fact or law in the decision, and does not warrant re-examination of the issue of jurisdiction.

Both False Representation Orders in this case have been modified to permit Respondent to receive mail and fill orders in accordance with stipulations by the parties pending judicial review of the Postal Service Decisions. Respondent is not prejudiced by the Orders and the public interest is preserved pending final resolution of this case by the courts.

As Respondent has shown no basis for revoking the Orders, its application is denied.