In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 UNITED STATES TESTING AUTHORITY TELEVISION DIVISION
 1681 Kennedy Causeway
 at
 North Bay Village, FL 33141-9982

 AMERICAN TESTING INSTITUTE
 6660 Biscayne Boulevard
 at Miami, FL 33138-6231

 and

 GIFT REDEMPTION CENTER
 Suite #5 13680 N.W. 19th Avenue
 at Miami, FL 33054-4214

 P.S. Docket No. 14/77; P.S. Docket No. 14/114;  

 11/30/84

 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Sandra C. McFeeley, Esq.
 Kenneth N. Hollies, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-1112

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Edward J. Carnot, Esq.
 25 West Middle Lane
 Rockville, MD 20850-2214

A limited appearance on behalf of Mark Howard has been filed which contests the jurisdiction of the Judicial Officer over the person of Mr. .Howard in connection with the Fourth Petition for Supplemental Orders. ^1/ In the limited appearance it is requested that, if the jurisdictional objections are denied, Mr. Howard be granted a fifteen day period from the date of the denial in which to file an Answer to the Fourth Petition for Supplemental Orders or to seek review of such denial.

On September 12, 1984, an Order transmitting the fourth Petition and accompanying papers was sent to Mr. Howard by certified mail. The Order and attachments were returned to the Recorder marked "Unclaimed." The envelope showed that two notices had been given to the addressee to claim the package, before its return on September 30, 1984. The package was resent by regular mail to Mr. Howard on November 8, 1984. Mr. Howard admits in the limited appearance that he received a copy of the fourth Petition and accompanying papers, as well as the Order of September 12, 1984, on November 9, 1984. Mr. Howard argues, however, that service was not accomplished in accordance with the requirements of 39 CFR Section 952.8 and therefore jurisdiction over his person has not been obtained.

The service requirements of Section 952.8 apply to the Notice of Answer and Hearing and the Complaint and are not applicable to a Petition for Supplemental Order which is governed by 39 CFR Section 952.30. Since Mr. Howard actually received the Petition and accompanying papers on November 9, 1984, proper service was accomplished no later than that date. Accordingly there is no merit to the argument that jurisdiction over the person of Mr. Howard has not been obtained.

By the Order of September 12, 1984, Mr. Howard was given ten calendar days in which to file his Answer to the fourth Petition. Proper service having taken place no later than November 9, 1984, the Answer was to be filed no later than November 19, 1984. As of the date of this Order no Answer has been filed. Instead, there was filed with the Recorder Mr. Howard's jurisdictional objections and a request for an extension of time to file the Answer. The filing of jurisdictional objections or any other motion does not serve to toll a filing date established by Order of the Judicial Officer. (See Order dated Sept. 25, 1984). ^2/ This is particularly true where the jurisdictional objections on their face are totally lacking in merit. Thus, the period for filing an Answer has expired without an Answer having been filed by Mr. Howard. By seeking an extension for filing the Answer and not filing the Answer within the time allowed, Mr. Howard assumed the risk that the requested extension might be denied and that no timely Answer would be filed. (See Order dated Sept. 25, 1984). Mr. Howard has not shown why the Answer could not have been filed on or before November 19, 1984, or presented good cause to support the extension requested. Accordingly, the request for an extension of the period for filing the Answer is denied.

In the absence of a timely filed Answer it is deemed that Mr. Howard does not oppose the issuance of the Orders sought in the fourth Petition. Accordingly, the Cease and Desist Order sought in the Petition as modified to apply to Mr. Howard is issued herewith.

1/ An earlier limited appearance contesting the Judicial Officer's jurisdiction over Mr. Howard was filed by his attorney and resulted in the fourth Petition and accompanying papers being mailed to Mr. Howard even though his attorney had already received all such papers. (See 39 CFR Section 952.16).

2/ As is evidenced by his statement in the "Answer to the Second Petition for Supplemental Orders", Mr. Howard's attorney was fully aware that the filing of a Motion to Dismiss does not toll the period for filing an Answer.