In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 PHILLIPS ENVELOPE
 P. O. Box 1501 at
 Salinas, CA 93902 et al

 P.S. Docket No. 8/23;
 
 07/15/81
 
 Cohen, James A.

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Sandr a C. McFeeley, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-6100

 James A. Harbin,Esq.
 Postal Inspector Attorney 
 United States Postal Service
 Western Region
 850 Cherry Avenue San Bruno, CA 94098

 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. 81-36 dated February 27, 1981, against various Respondents enumerated in the caption of the Postal Service Decision of the same date.

On June 10, 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. 81-36 by conducting the same or a similar scheme under different names and addresses. The names and addresses at which the Petition alleges the same or a similar scheme is being conducted and against which the Supplemental Order is requested to be issued are: CALIFORNIA ADVERTISING, 1698 Market Street, Suite 104, Redding, CA 96099 and P. O. Box 6007, Redding, CA 96099; BUSINESS SERVICES, 7 South Grant Street, Denver, CO 80201 and P. O. Box 1798, Denver, CO 80201.

By notice dated June 10, 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. At Respondent's request the period for filing its opposition to the Petition for Supplemental Order was extended to July 6, 1981. By letter dated July 9, 1981, Respondent advised that it had decided it would file no response to the Petition.

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. 81-36, by conducting the same or a similar scheme whichis the subject of the order under different names and at different addresses. Accordingly, a Supplemental Mail Stop Order against Respondent under the names and at the addresses alleged in the Petition is being issued contemporaneously with this Decision.