1. APWU: This is an action by the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (hereafter " the APWU) for a declaratory judgment finding that the United States Postal Service (hereafter "Postal Service") has violated Section 3661 of the Postal Reorganization Act, and preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the United States Postal Service from implementing its Evolutionary Network Development (hereafter "END") program in violation of Section 3661 of the Postal Reorganization Act. 

1. USPS: This paragraph consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of this proceeding. No answer appears to be necessary. Insofar as an answer is deemed necessary, Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.

2. APWU: Section 3661 of the Postal Reorganization Act (hereafter "the Act" requires that "[w]hen the Postal Service determines that there should be a change in the nature of postal services which general affect service on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis, it shall submit a proposal, within a reasonable time prior to the effective date of such proposal, to the Postal Rate Commission requesting an advisory opinion on the change."

2. USPS: This paragraph consists of Plaintiff’s characterization and quotation of 39 U.S.C. § 3661(b). No answer appears to be necessary. Insofar as an answer is deemed necessary, Defendant admits the allegations in this paragraph.

3. APWU: Section 3661 of the Act also mandate that the Postal Rate Commission (hereafter" the Commission") provides users of the mail an opportunity for hearing on the record in conformance with the Sections 556 and 557 of the Administrative Procedure Act before issuing an advisory opinion.

3. USPS: This paragraph consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of 39 U.S.C. § 3661(c). No answer appears to be necessary. Insofar as an answer is deemed necessary, Defendant admits the allegations in this paragraph.

4. APWU: The Postal Service has developed a program to change its mail sorting, processing and transportation operations that will impact postal services on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis and has begun implementation of this program without submitting it to the Commission a reasonable time prior to the program's effective date and without receiving an advisory opinion from the Commission in violation of the Postal Reorganization Act.

4. USPS: Insofar as these allegations consist of plaintiff’s statements of legal conclusions and not factual allegations, no answer appears necessary. Insofar as an answer is deemed necessary to such legal conclusions, Defendant denies the allegations. Defendant denies this paragraph, insofar as it alleges as a matter of fact that Defendant began implementation of any changes in postal services as part of a nationwide or substantially nationwide program, without first requesting an advisory opinion from the Postal Rate Commission regarding those changes. Defendant also denies this paragraph, insofar as it alleges as a matter of fact that its request was not submitted to the Postal Rate Commission for review in a “reasonable” time before the first of any such service changes have been or will have been implemented, within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. § 3661, as implemented by 39 C.F.R. § 3001.72.

5. APWU: Plaintiff, as a mailer, will be irreparably injured of the Postal Service is not prevented from violating the Section of 3661 of the Postal Reorganization Act.

5. USPS: This paragraph consists of Plaintiff’s statement of a legal conclusion, in response to which no answer appears to be necessary. Insofar as an answer is deemed necessary, Defendant denies that Plaintiff has been or will be irreparably injured by any action of Defendant which is the subject of the Complaint. The Defendant also denies that any of its actions which are the subject of this Complaint have violated 39 U.S.C. § 3661 or that any such violation is imminent.

6. APWU: This Court has jurisdiction under 39 U.S.C   § 409 (a); and under 28 U.S.C.  § § 1331 amd 1339; and 28 28 U.S. C  § § 2201 and 2202.

6. USPS: This paragraph consists of Plaintiff’s statement of a legal conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of this Court, in response to which no answer appears to be is necessary. Insofar as an answer is deemed necessary, Defendant admits that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the Complaint.

7. APWU: Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C  § 1391 (b) and (e) because the Defendant has its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. 

7. USPS: This paragraph consists of Plaintiff’s statement of a legal conclusion regarding the venue of this proceeding, in response to which no answer appears to be necessary. Insofar as an answer is deemed necessary, Defendant denies that venue is proper. Defendant admits that its principal place of business is in Washington, D.C.

8.  APWU: Plaintiff American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter" the APWU"), is an unincorporated labor organization with its principal offices at 1300 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20005 that represents approximately 300,000 postal employees for purposes of collective bargaining. Plaintiff APWU is a large mailer. The APWU and its locals mail more than 3 million pieces of mail each year. Plaintiff APWU maintains offices and conducts business throughout the United States and has local affiliates in every state and territory of the United States. Plaintiff APWU sends mail in and receives mail from every U.S. State and territory

8. USPS: Defendant admits the first sentence in this paragraph.  Defendant lacks sufficient information with which to form a belief as to the allegations in the second and third sentences in this paragraph, insofar as they relate to mail volume generated by the Plaintiff and its affiliates. Defendant admits the fourth sentence in this paragraph. Defendant lacks sufficient information with which to form a belief as to the allegations in the fifth sentence in this paragraph.

9.  APWU: Defendant United States Postal Service (hereinafter " the Postal service") is, pursuant to 39 U.S. C & 201 " an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States..." The headquarters of the Postal Service is at 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, D.C. 20260.

9. USPS: Defendant admits the allegations in this paragraph.

10. APWU: In November 2001 or before, the Postal Service began development of a Network Integration and Alignment (hereinafter "NIA") plan to be used to analyze and redesign the existing postal existing postal facility network as part of the Postal Service Transformation Plan.

10. USPS: Defendant denies this paragraph insofar as it alleges that Defendant began development in 2001 of a plan to analyze and redesign its existing mail processing network. At that time, Defendant began development of computer optimization and simulation models that, when ultimately operable, could be utilized as analytical tools for planning a future mail processing network and for testing the feasibility of proposals to shift operations among specific mail processing facilities to realize that future network. Defendant admits that the optimization and simulation models under development at that time were part of a Network Integration and Alignment (NIA) program that has since been renamed Evolutionary Network Development (END).

11. APWU: The Postal Service agreed to provide a copy of its NIA plan to the APWU no later than 2002.

11. USPS: Defendant lacks sufficient information with which to form a belief as to the allegation that it agreed to provide a copy of its “NIA plan” to the Plaintiff “no later than 2002.”

12. APWU: The Postal Service' NIA plan was sufficiently developed to be used, at least in part , by December 2002.

12. USPS: Defendant denies that its plans for the redesign of its mail processing network were sufficiently developed for use to any degree in or about December 2002, or that it embarked on any centralized plan for mail processing network realignment in or about December 2002. Defendant also denies that the optimization and simulation models referenced above in paragraph 10 were sufficiently developed for use as tools as part of any such plan in or around that time.

13. APWU: Since December 2002 the Postal service has used its NIA plan to evaluate proposals to consolidate postal facilities; and proposals selected by NIA have resulted in the closure of approximately 30 Postal Service processing facilities, and in the reallocation of work processed in other facilities.

13. USPS: Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to paragraph 12. Defendant denies this paragraph insofar as it alleges or implies that Defendant utilized its (formerly NIA) Evolutionary Network Development optimization and/or simulation models to centrally direct a nationwide plan for network realignment or operational consolidation before 2006. Defendant admits that, for decades, it has maintained Area Mail Processing (AMP) review procedures, USPS Handbook PO-408 (March 1995), through which independently developed local management proposals for facility-specific operational consolidations are circulated up the chain-of-command to headquarters for review and consideration. Defendant admits that, since 2004, 17 such locally developed proposals (6 in 2004 and 11 in 2005) were approved; one such proposal in 2005 resulted in the closure of a postal facility; the other 16 involved shifting various mail processing operations among facilities. Defendant admits that review and approval of all such locally developed AMP consolidation proposals was put on hold for a time in 2002-2004. Defendant admits that this moratorium on review and approval of local AMP proposals was imposed to ensure that no locally developed proposals would be approved that might later be determined to have resulted in the establishment of roles for affected facilities that would be incompatible with the roles those facilities might play in a future mail processing network designed through use of the END optimization and simulation models.

Defendant denies this paragraph insofar as it implies at these local operational consolidation proposals were initiated at headquarters or through use of the END models. Defendant denies that either END/NIA or the AMP review procedures have, since 2002, resulted in the closure of approximately 30 mail processing facilities.

Defendant admits that END/NIA can be expected to result in the shifting of operations among postal facilities on a systemwide basis, and that such consolidation of operations could lead to the closure of some facilities.

14. APWU: The Postal Service has not revealed its overall network realignment strategy, opting instead to reveal it slowly over time.

14. USPS: Defendant denies that it has not revealed its systemwide Evolutionary Network Development network realignment strategy, which is the subject of its February 14, 2006, request for an advisory opinion in Postal Rate Commission Docket No. R2006-1. Defendant admits that its network realignment strategy was under development for nearly five years.

15. APWU: The NIA plan has been re-named the Evolutionary Network Development (hereinafter "END') process. The NIA and END processes use the same methods, data, models and objectives for designing the Postal Service's mail processing network.

15. USPS: Defendant admits that the former Network Integration & Alignment (NIA) program has transformed into and been re-named the Evolutionary Network Development (END) program. Defendant admits that, in all material respects, END has inherited the methodologies, data inputs, and objectives of the optimization and simulations models developed under the NIA acronym.

16. APWU: Under Section 3661 (b) of the Postal Reorganization Act (hereinafter" the Act" ), before implementing a "change in the nature of postal services which will generally affect service on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis" the Postal service must seek an advisory opinion regarding this change from the Postal Rate Commission (hereinafter "the Commission" or "the PRC").

16. USPS: This paragraph consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of and quotation from 39 U.S.C. § 3661(b). No answer appears to be necessary. Insofar as an answer is deemed necessary, Defendant admits the allegations in this paragraph.

17.APWU:  Under Section 3661 (b) of the Act, the Postal Service must submit its proposal to the Commission for an advisory opinion "within a reasonable time prior to the effective date of such proposal."

17. USPS: This paragraph consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of and quotation of a passage from 39 U.S.C. § 3661(b), which is implemented by 39 C.F.R. § 3001.72. No answer appears to be necessary. Insofar as an answer is deemed necessary, Defendant admits that § 3661 requires that a request for an advisory opinion be filed with the Postal Rate Commission “within a reasonable time prior to the effective date of such proposal.” Defendant also admits that 39 C.F.R. § 3001.72 states that such a request must be filed at least 90 days before the Postal Service implements any proposed service changes. Defendant’s 39 U.S.C § 3661(b) request in Postal Rate Commission Docket No. N2006-1 was filed on February 14, 2006. As of the date of the filing of this Answer, Defendant has not implemented any service changes arising from that request. Accordingly, Defendant denies this paragraph, insofar as it alleges that Defendant implemented any changes that are a part of its systemwide Evolutionary Network Development program less than 90 days after February 14, 2006.

18. APWU: Previous Section 3662 proceedings before the Postal rate Commission on other changes n the nature of postal services have taken approximately 8-12 months to complete.

18. USPS: Defendant admits that earlier Postal Rate Commission dockets initiated in response to requests filed under 39 U.S.C. § 3661(b) have ranged in duration from approximately four to approximately 12 months from the date of the request to the issuance of the advisory opinion.

19. APWU: Eight months to one year is a reasonable period of time for completion of a Section 3661.

19. USPS: Insofar as the paragraph should be interpreted as alleging that 39 U.S.C. § 3661, as implemented by 39 C.F.R. 3001.72 et seq., requires any minimum or maximum length of time before the issuance of an advisory opinion, such an assertion is not an allegation of fact, but constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response appears to be required. Insofar as an answer is deemed necessary, Defendant denies the allegation. Insofar as the paragraph should be interpreted as alleging that 39 U.S.C. § 3661, as implemented by 39 C.F.R. § 3001.72, requires Defendant to wait longer than 90 days from the filing of its request before implementing any service changes that are the subject of that request, such an assertion is not an allegation of fact, but constitute a legal conclusion to which no response appears to be required. Insofar as a response is deemed required, Defendant denies the allegation.

20. APWU:  On February 14, 2006 the Postal service submitted a portion of the END plan ot the Postal Rate Commission pursuant to Section 3661 of the Postal Reorganization Act. This submission is the subject of CASE No. N 2006-1 pending before the Commission.

20. USPS: Defendant admits that, on February 14, 2006, it filed a request seeking a non-binding advisory opinion from the Commission regarding service changes that Defendant anticipates will result from operational consolidations implemented in pursuit of its Evolutionary Network Development realignment initiative.

21. APWU:  The Postal Service's submission to the Commission stated that it intended to implement END on or about May 15, 2006.

21. USPS: Defendant admits the allegation in this paragraph. As of the date of the filing of this Answer, Defendant denies that any service changes expected to arise from the plan submitted to the Postal Rate Commission for review on February 14, 2006, have been implemented.

22. APWU:  In its N 2006-1 submission, the Postal Service sought expedited consideration of END, proposing a truncated procedural schedule that would have required the Commission to complete consideration of the END plan and provide its advice by May 5, 2006, in time for a May 15, 2006 implementation.

22. USPS: Defendant admits that, concurrently with its February 14, 2006 request in Docket No, N2006-1, it proposed an expedited procedural schedule that, if adopted by the Commission, would have permitted the Commission to issue its advisory opinion within a “reasonable” time prior to the anticipated May 15, 2006 effective date of the first service changes to result from its Docket No. N2006-1 proposal, within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. 3661(b), as implemented by 39 C.F.R. § 3001.72.

23. APWU:  At a prehearing conference in N 2006-1 held on March 24, 2006, the Commission rejected the Postal service's proposed schedule, noting that its advice would be more valuable if it was based on a fully developed evidentiary record.

23. USPS: Defendant admits that in Order No. 1453, Notice And Order Concerning Postal Service Request For An Advisory Opinion On Changes In Postal Services (February 17, 2006), the Postal Rate Commission stated its preference that a less expeditious Docket No. N2006-1 procedural schedule for the consideration of the Postal Service’s request be adopted. Defendant also admits that the Commission reiterated that preference at the Docket No. N2006-1 pre-hearing conference on March 24, 2006, during which it declined to adopt the expedited procedural schedule proposed by Defendant.

24. APWU:  The Commission also asked that all parties submit briefs on the scope of the proceeding as well as the Commission's authority in the case . These briefs were submitted on April 4, 2006.

24. USPS: Defendant admits the allegation in this paragraph.

25. APWU:  On April 13, 2006, the PRC issued a procedural schedule in N 2006-1. This schedule provides:

1. Discovery against the Postal Service's direct case ends May 22. 2006
2. Hearings on the Postal Service's direct case will be held on June 15 and 16, 2006 beginning at 9:30 a.m. in the Commission's hearing room.
3. Counsel for the Postal Service shall file a statement confirming the availability of its witnesses for the June 15 and 16, 2006 hearings no later than June 5, 2006.
4 Designations of written cross-examination for witness Shah are due June 12, 2006.

5. Designations of written cross-examinations for witness Williams and the Postal Service as an institution are due on June 13, 2006.

6. The deadline for submission of rebuttal testimony is June 23, 2006.

25. USPS: Defendant admits the allegations in this paragraph.

26. APWU:  Under the schedule ser by the PRC in N 2006-1, the Commission most likely will not issue its decision until the fall of 2006.

26. USPS: Defendant lacks sufficient information with which to form a belief as to which season in 2006 the Commission’s Docket No. N2006-1 advisory opinion might be issued.

27. APWU:  The Postal Service ahs already begun to consolidate facilities evaluated using the END initiative.

27. USPS: Defendant denies this paragraph, to the extent that it alleges that, as of the date of this Answer, any service changes arising from the pursuit of the Evolutionary Network Development realignment plan currently undergoing review in Docket No. N2006-1 have been implemented.

28. APWU:  At least ten postal facilities were selected for Area Mail Processing (hereinafter "AMP") review in the summer of 2005. These 10 AMP proposals were subjected tro END analysis and found to be consistent with the Postal Service's future network design. The 10 facilities to be consolidated include Pasadena, California

28. USPS: Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to paragraph 13. Defendant denies the first sentence of paragraph 28, insofar at it alleges that operations at the postal facilities referenced therein were selected for Area Mail Processing review in the summer of 2005. The 10 facilities listed in paragraph 28 of the Complaint were nominated by their respective local district or area postal managers for AMP review at various times, some as early as 2001. Defendant admits that in 2005, based on facility roles that were expected to be adopted for purposes pursuing Evolutionary Network Development, it determined that none of these 10 locally developed AMP operational consolidation proposals suggested roles for the affected facilities that would be incompatible with the potential roles those facilities could play in a future mail processing network. Defendant admits that, on this basis, it permitted each these long-pending, locally-developed AMP consolidation proposals to move forward though the AMP review process. Defendant denies this paragraph, insofar as it alleges that these consolidation proposals were initiated or resolved by use of the END models.

29. APWU:  On April 3, 2006, the Postal began to move mail normally processed at the Olympia, Washington Processing & Distribution Facility ("P& DF") to the Tacoma, Washington Processing & Distribution Center ("P & DC") (hereinafter" the Olympia/Tacoma consolidation")

29. USPS: Defendant admits the allegation in this paragraph.

30. APWU:  When the Olympia/Tacoma consolidation is completed, some mail collection box cut-off times will be earlier than they were prior to consolidation; and some mail service for the area will be adversely affected due to the added time taken to transport the mail between Olympia and Tacoma. Postmarks for Olympia originating mail will also be affected. 

30. USPS: Defendant admits that, in conjunction with the implementation of the Olympia, Washington AMP operational consolidation plan identified in paragraphs 28 and 29, it currently plans to move the last pickup times on eight (of 420) collection boxes in the Olympia 985 3-digit ZIP Code area from times that are currently at or after 5:00p.m. to times that are before 5:00p.m. Defendant admits that, when this local plan is implemented, some First-Class Mail currently originating and postmarked in Olympia will be postmarked in Tacoma, Washington. Defendant denies that the Olympia AMP plan calls for any such First-Cass Mail with an overnight service standard to be downgraded to a 2-day service standard. Defendant lacks sufficient information with which to form a belief as to the assertion that the service for such mail will be “adversely affected.”

31. APWU:  The remaining nine AMP proposals already approved by the Postal Service are currently  in various stages of implementation and consolidation for all these facilities is expected to be completed by June of 2006.

31. USPS: Defendant admits the allegations in this paragraph.

32. APWU:  Forty-one additional facilities have been targeted for review under END and are expected to be consolidated.

32. USPS: Defendant admits this paragraph, insofar as it alleges that it Evolutionary Network Development initiative is designed to subject the operations at all of the mail processing plants in its network to review for the purpose of determining whether redundant and inefficient operations and transportation can be reduced or eliminated.

Defendant admits this paragraph, insofar as it alleges that 41 candidate facilities were identified as of February 14, 2006, and that most are currently undergoing review for this purpose.

33. APWU:   As part of the consolidation process, Postal Service mail processing equipment and machines will be transferred to different facilities at substantial expense.

33. USPS: Defendant admits this paragraph, insofar as it alleges that some of the facility-specific determinations to be made as part of its Evolutionary Network Development initiative could result in the transfer of under-utilized mail processing equipment to facilities where it will be better utilized. Defendant lacks sufficient information with which to form a belief as to the extent to which this will occur or whether equipment transfer expenses will be “substantial” in relation to a standard not specified in the allegation.

34. APWU:   Section 101 (a) of the Postal Reorganization Act provides:

§ Section 101. Postal Policy

(a) ...The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities

34. USPS: Defendant admits that the paragraph consists of an accurate quotation from a portion of 39 U.S.C. § 101(a).

35. APWU: Section 101 (b) of the Postal Reorganization Act provides:

 § Section 101. Postal Policy

(b) The Postal Service shall provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communities and small towns where post offices are not self-sustaining.

35. USPS: Defendant admits that the paragraph consists of an accurate quotation from a portion of 39 U.S.C. § 101(b).

36. APWU: Under Section 403, of the Postal Reorganization Act, provides:

§ 403. General Duties

(b) It shall be the responsibility of the Postal Service--

..(3) to establish and maintain postal facilities of such character and in such locations that postal patrons throughout the Nation will, consistent with reasonable economies of postal operations, have ready access to essential postal services.

36. USPS: Defendant admits that the paragraph consists of an accurate quotation of 39 U.S.C. § 403(b)(3).

37. APWU: Despite the policies of the Postal Reorganization Act quoted above, the Postal Service does not provide for the solicitation and consideration of the comments and concerns of the mailing public as part of its END initiative. Public comments are considered, if at all, after a decision to consolidate processing operations or facilities has been made.

37. USPS: Defendant denies this paragraph, to the extent that it alleges as a matter of fact or law, that the Postal Reorganization Act, as implemented by either the Postal Service or the Postal Rate Commission, requires the formal solicitation of public comments and concerns of the mailing public, as part of the Evolutionary Network Development initiative. Defendant also denies this paragraph, to the extent that it alleges that Defendant has not established and implemented formal processes for the predecisional solicitation of public comment regarding local operational consolidation proposals developed in pursuit of the objectives of its Evolutionary Network Development initiative.

38. APWU: The END plan does not consider costs or burdens to the mailing public; it only considers Postal Service costs.

38. USPS: Defendant admits that internally developed proposals to consolidate mail processing operations as a part of the Evolutionary Network Development initiative are based upon consideration of internal postal costs only. Defendant denies this paragraph, insofar as it alleges that the pre-decisional public comment process referenced above in paragraph 37 precludes the mailing public from making assertions about its costs and burdens for Defendant to consider.

39. APWU: Under Section 3661 of the Postal Rate Reorganization Act, the Postal Service is required to seek the advice of the Postal Rate Commission and in turn, the Commission may not issue an advisory opinion until an opportunity for public comment has been afforded and these comments considered.

39. USPS: This paragraph consists of the statement of legal conclusions in the form of characterizations of 39 U.S.C. § 3661(b) and (c) to which no answer is required.

Insofar as an answer is deemed required, Defendant admits the allegations, to the extent that they refer exclusively to the aforementioned subsections of 39 U.S.C. 3661 and not to the postal solicitation of public comment referenced above in paragraphs 37 and 38.

40. APWU: If the Postal Service is permitted to continue its implementation of postal mail processing and facility consolidations under END it will do so before receiving the advice of the Commission.

40. USPS: Defendant admits that it is authorized under 39 U.S.C. § 3661, as implemented by 39 C.F.R. § 3001.72, to implement the first service changes resulting form its Evolutionary Network Development realignment initiative 90 days after the filing of its February 14, 2006, PRC Docket No. N2006-1 request. Defendant lacks sufficient information with which to form a belief as to whether an advisory opinion in that docket will be issued before any such changes are implemented.

41. APWU: The changes made by the Postal service under the END program will adversely affect mail service to the APWU and its locals in many areas.

41. USPS: Defendant lacks sufficient information with which to form a belief as to the allegations in this paragraph.

42. APWU: Changes made pursuant to consolidation, including the relocation of personnel and equipment, will be impractical to reverse resulting in irreparable harm to APWU, its locals, and other mailers across the United States who will experience a degradation in service.

42. USPS: Defendant, which has long-standing processes in place for post-implementation review and, if necessary, reversal of operational consolidations in its Area Mail Processing Guidelines (Handbook PO-408 -- March 1995), denies that such consolidations are impractical to reverse or would result in irreparable harm to Plaintiff, its affiliates, or to the mailing public.

43. APWU: The benefits of requiring the Postal Service to cease implementation of END until it has the opportunity to avail itself of the Postal Rate Commission's advice outweigh any potential harm to the Postal Service caused by the delay.

43. USPS: Defendant lacks sufficient information with which to form a belief as to the assertion that the benefits of requiring it to cease implementation of its Evolutionary Network Development initiative -- until such time that it has had an opportunity to reflect upon a non-binding advisory opinion to be issued by the Postal Rate Commission in response to its February 14, 2006, Docket No. N2006-1 request -- outweigh any potential harm to Defendant caused by the delay in waiting for the issuance of such an opinion. Defendant denies this paragraph, insofar as it asserts that that Defendant, as of the date of this Answer, is required by 39 U.S.C. § 3661 or 39 C.F.R. § 3001.72 to delay implementation of any service changes arising from its February 14, 2006, Docket No. N2006-1 request until such time as it has had an opportunity to reflect upon a non-binding advisory opinion issued by the Postal Rate Commission.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs APWU prays that this Court issue a decision and order:

44. APWU: Declaring that it is unlawful for the Postal service to proceed with modification to its mail processing operations pursuant to END because the Postal Service has failed to submit END to the Postal Rate Commission a reasonable time prior to the implementation of END; and

44. USPS: Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in this paragraph.

45. APWU: Granting the APWU a Preliminary Injunction ordering the Postal service to cease and desist from modifying postal operations and facilities pursuant to END until October 2006, to provide the Postal Rate Commission a reasonable amount of time to conduct hearings and issue an opinion on END under Section 3661 of the Postal Reorganization Act; and

45. USPS: Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in this paragraph and that the Court is authorized to grant such relief.

46. APWU: Permanently enjoining the Postal service fro implementing any future modifications pursuant to END until the Postal Rate Commission has issued its advisory opinion stating whether the Postal Service's network realignment strategy is consistent with the policies of the Postal Reorganization Act.

46. USPS: Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in this paragraph and that the Court is authorized to grant such relief.

Defendant hereby denied each and every other allegation in this complaint that has not been otherwise addressed above.

Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief from this Court.

Defendant denies any and all other allegations of the Complaint not expressly admitted.