In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 PAUL HARVEY
 515 N. Hunter and
 540 N. California at
 Stockton, CA 95202

 P.S. Docket No. 8/10;
 
 06/15/81
 
 Cohen, James A.

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Sandr a C. McFeeley, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 475 L'Enfant Plaza West, SW
 Washington, DC 20260

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Lee H. Harter, Esq.
 2256 Van Ness Avenue
 San Francisco, CA 94109

Prior proceedings in this matter led to the issuance of Mail Stop Order No. 80-129 dated June 19, 1980, against mail addressed to the captioned Respondent at the captioned addresses.

On May 12, 1981, Complainant filed a Petition for Supplemental Order, with attachments, alleging in effect that Respondent is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of Mail Stop Order No. 80-129, by conducting the same scheme under a different name at a different address. The name and address at which the Petition alleges the same scheme is being conducted, and against which the Supplemental Order is requested to be issued, is Lobo Publishing, 495 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

By notice dated May 12, 1981, Respondent was notified that if it intended to oppose the Petition for Supplemental Order it could file its Answer not later than 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of the Petition. The Petition was delivered to Respondent's counsel on May 18, 1981. By letter of that date, received by the Recorder on May 21, 1981, Respondent's counsel advised that the Petition did not include the Rules of Practice and Petitioner's Exhibit 7, and requested that copies of these documents be furnished to him as soon as possible. On May 22, 1981, the requested documents were sent to Respondent's counsel. Although Respondent's counsel did not seek an extension of the period for filing an Answer to the Petition, the period is considered extended to 10 days after receipt of the May 22, 1981 transmittal of the additional documents. Allowing for normal mailing, the last date for filing an Answer was June 5, 1981. Cf., Schultz v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 618 (1955). As of the date of this Decision no Answer to the Petition has been filed by Respondent.

Since no Answer has been filed, it is concluded that Respondent does not oppose the issuance of the Order sought by the Petition. Moreover, by the attachments to the Petition, a prima facie showing has been made that Respondent is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of Mail Stop Order No. 80-129, by conducting the scheme which is the subject of the Order at a different address. Accordingly, a Supplemental Mail Stop Order against the name and address alleged in the Petition is being issued contemporaneously with this Decision.