In the Matter of the Petition by:

 SEATTLE GUIDE, INC.,
 600 First Avenue, Suite 434,
 Seattle, WA 98104-2284;

 Proposed Revocation of Second-Class Mail Privileges for "SEATTLE GUIDE"  

 P.S. Docket No. 31/34

 03/07/89

 Mason, Randolph D., Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
 Tucker McHugh, pro se,
 600 1st Avenue, Suite 434,
 Seattle, WA 98104 

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Janet E. Noble, Esq., Law Department,
 U.S. Postal Service,
 Washington, DC 20260-1141

This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Seattle Guide, Inc., publisher of "Seattle Guide." The Petition disputes the Determination issued on June 24, 1988, in which the Director, Office of Mail Classification ("Director") proposed to revoke the publication's second-class mail privileges. The determination is based on Petitioner's alleged failure to meet the requirement of Domestic Mail Manual ("DMM") § 422.6 that more than 50% of its copies be distributed to persons who request the publication. Petitioner disputes Respondent's interpretation of the regulation. The parties have submitted the case to the Administrative Law Judge for decision based upon the pleadings and a Joint Stipulation of Facts, Exhibits and Issues. Also, Respondent filed a brief which has been duly considered. Based on the entire record, I make the following findings of fact ^1/ and conclusions of law:

1. Seattle Guide is authorized second-class entry as a requester publication under DMM § 422.6. It is a periodical publication which has been issued weekly since 1922. Its office of publication is 600 First Avenue, Suite 434, Seattle, Washington 98104.

2. The publication consists of articles on events in Seattle and advertising material of local businesses.

3. For purposes of this proceeding, the parties stipulate that the publication meets all of the second-class requirements, with the exception of DMM § 422.6d.

4. Approximately 12,000 copies of each issue of Seattle Guide are distributed. A small number are circulated pursuant to paid subscription and are sent through the mails. The vast majority are delivered by the publication to about 15 hotels, and to visitor centers, convention centers and other outlets in the Seattle area. Each of these establishments asks to receive a number of copies of the publication, which are then passed on free to its customers and guests. In addition, there are requests from individuals and organizations for copies of the publication, which vary in number from week to week.

5. Seattle Guide's PS Form 3526, Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation, filed September 25, 1987, showed an average total distribution of 15,300, of which 14,755 were distributed free. The actual number of copies published for the issue produced nearest to the filing date of Form 3526 was 12,000, with 11,441 distributed free.

6. About 550 copies of Seattle Guide are mailed each week.

7. The November 6, 1987 issue included 452 copies that were mailed, and 6625 issues that were distributed to 15 hotels pursuant to bulk requests ranging from 100 to 1,000 copies. An additional 4501 issues were distributed in bulk in the same manner as the issues distributed to the hotels, i.e., delivered in bulk to the establishment and passed on for free to guests and customers.

8. In his Determination letter dated June 24, 1988, the Director notified the publisher of the pending revocation of second-class privileges on the ground that Seattle Guide did not meet the 50% request requirement. Petitioner had taken the position that requests in bulk should be counted as multiple requests. For example, Petitioner would have argued that the request by a single hotel for 1000 copies should be treated as 1000 requests. However, the Director held that multiple copies requested by an individual count only as a single request.

1. The only issue is whether Seattle Guide satisfies the following requirement set forth in DMM § 422.6d:

. . . [T]he publication must have a legitimate list of persons who request the publication, and 50 percent or more of the copies of the publication must be distributed to persons making such requests.

The Postal Service argues (1) that all copies of the publication, whether circulated by mail, bulk distribution to hotels, or otherwise, should be considered in calculating the 50% requirement, and (2) that an establishment's request for multiple copies of a publication for further distribution should be counted as a single request. On the other hand, Petitioner contends that only copies circulated by mail should be considered for purposes of the calculation, and that a request for multiple copies should count as multiple requests.

2. The Judicial Officer has previously upheld the Postal Service's interpretation of § 422.6d and specifically rejected the Petitioner's position. Mr. Jacob Steinman, P.S. Docket No. 18/84 (P.S.D. July 25, 1984); David A. Rose, P.S. Docket No. 18/76 (P.S.D. June 20, 1985).

3. Petitioner also argued that the regulation in question had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court. However, the cited case was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and involved a different regulation. The Enterprise, Inc. v. Bolger, 774 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1985). Moreover, Administrative Law Judges have no jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the Postal Service's regulations. Columbia Flier, P.S. Docket No. 26/17 (May 11, 1988).

4. Accordingly, the determination of the Director, Office of Mail Classification is sustained and the appeal is denied.

___________________

1/ Although all of the stipulated facts are found, only the essential facts are set forth below.