In the Matter of the Petition by ) July 18, 1984 ) FRANK MARTINEAU, CAE ) Editor and Publisher ) 7204 Clarendon Road ) Bethesda, MD 20814-2320 ) ) Proposed Revocation of Second- ) Class Mail Privileges for ) "ASSOCIATION TRENDS" ) P.S. Docket No. 17/37 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Frank Martineau 7204 Clarendon Road Bethesda, MD 20814-2320 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey H. Zelkowitz, Esq. Law Department United States Postal Service Washington, DC 20260-1143 Cohen, James A.
Petitioner has appealed from the Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge which affirmed the decision of the General Manager, Domestic Mail Classification Division, United States Postal Service, proposing to revoke second-class mail privileges for the publication "Association Trends." The Administrative Law Judge, relying on dictionary definitions of the word "page" as meaning one or both sides "of a leaf of something printed or written," concluded that Petitioner's publication does not contain at least 24 pages as required by § 422.6a of the Domestic Mail Manual (I.D. at pp. 2-3).
The Administrative Law Judge also concluded that he was not authorized to consider Petitioner's contentions which relate to the validity of this provision of the Domestic Mail Manual (I.D. at p. 3).
In appealing the Initial Decision to the Judicial Officer, Petitioner contends that the decision "was made on the narrow grounds of the definition of 'page' and a large 'page';" and this failure to provide equal treatment for all publications renders § 422.6 of the Domestic Mail Manual unenforceable. Respondent has filed a Reply Brief addressing these contentions.
There is no dispute that under § 422.6a of the Domestic Mail Manual, each issue of a requester publication must contain at least 24 pages in order to qualify for second-class rates. There is also no dispute that Petitioner's publication failed to meet the 24-page requirement under either dictionary definition cited by the Administrative Law Judge. Reliance on these definitions is appropriate since they reflect what is commonly meant by the word "page." See, Ussery v. United States, 296 F.2d 582, 585 (5th Cir. 1961); Townsend v. Heckler, 581 F.Supp. 157, 159 (W.D. Va. 1983). Petitioner has not shown that legislative history or custom and usage supports the adoption of a different definition. The definition of a "page" proposed by Petitioner, based on print area, is not warranted merely because it accommodates the format of his publication.
Petitioner's contention that the Manual's page requirement does not provide equal treatment for all covered publications, and is therefore unenforceable, is beyond the Judicial Officer's authority to decide. 39 C.F.R. § 224.1(c)(4)(iii); Phillip Maimone, P.S. Docket No. 5/30 (P.S.D. Feb. 7, 1977) at 5.
After having considered the entire record and Petitioner's arguments, it is concluded that Petitioner's publication does not conform to the provisions of the Domestic Mail Manual for second-class mail. Accordingly, Petitioner's appeal is denied.