In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 CONGERS COLOR LABS 
 at Congers NY l0920

 and
 MOHR COLOR LABS
 P. O. Box 237,
 Main & Taconic Sts.
 at Manchester, VT 05254

 P.S. Docket No. 4/37;  
 
 03/30/83
 
 Cohen, Jmaes A.  

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

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Charles R. Eichel, Esq.
 Main Street P. O. Box 868
 Manchester Center, VA 05255-0868

On February 25, l983, Complainant filed a "Petition for Orders Based on Breach of Consent Agreements" in which it alleges that Respondent has breached the terms of a Consent Agreement dated November 14, l975, and a Supplemental Consent Agreement dated August ll, l979, executed by Raymond M. Mohr. Complainant contends that Respondent has breached the terms of the Consent Agreement by resuming the activities which it agreed to discontnue. the name and address under which Complinant contends Respondent conducts the resumed activities which constitute a breach of the Consent Agreements are:

Mohr Color Labs

P.O. Box 237

Manchester, Vermont 05254-0237

In its Petition, Complainant sought the issuance of a temporary detention order against the above name and address pending final resolution of the issue concerning the alleged breach of the agreement. On the basis of information attached to the Petition, a temporary detentin order was issued on March 3, 1983. The Orde authorizing the temporary detention of Respondent's mail granted Respondent a period of ten dyas in which to file a reply to Complainant's Petition. No reply has been filed by Respondent. In the absence of a reply, the allegations of the Petition are deemed to be admitted. These allegations which are supported by the attachments to the Petition make a prima facie showing that Respondent has breached the Consent Agreement in the manner alleged in the Petition.

Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the Consent Agreements, an Order under 39 U.S.C. § 3005 is being issued with this decision.