(Revised) do not create, nor is there evidence that they were intended to foster, "jurisdictional" prerequisites. See 1968 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News, 4220-4232. Rather, they simply mandate "cooperation," "consultation," "coordination," and the like, between the various organs of federal and local government. Azzolina v. United States Postal Service, 602 F. Supp. 859, 863 (D.N.J. 1985) (obligation of federal agency is to "provide opportunities for consultation and communication and to make efforts to accommodate state and local concerns"); see also Exec. Order No. 12,372, 47 Fed. Reg. 30959 (1982). No provision in the ICA expressly or implicitly vests local planning boards with the power to veto proposed federal construction projects. And that, essentially, is the power that Clinton Township would seek to assert in this case.
Similarly, there is no support for plaintiff's suggestion that A-95s must precede the government's acceptance of contract bids. The ICA creates an opportunity for local authorities to be heard and "to the extent possible" commands only that federal authorities listen.
In this case, admittedly, the Postal Service failed to send the A-95 form to the HCPB. There is no allegation or evidence of bad faith or intentional effort to sidestep prescribed procedures, however. Indeed, notices were sent to the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in September 1981. Plaintiff has not challenged the Postal Service's assertion that its error was simple oversight. Moreover, local authorities clearly were advised of the De Sapios' contract by February 1982, at the latest, and have demonstrated no real prejudice from not having received an A-95 form at an earlier date. Although the court does not condone and is reluctant to overlook the Postal Service's failure to observe the letter of administrative notice requirements, it is even more reluctant to grant injunctive relief where effective notice was achieved by alternate means and particularly where the ends of the ICA, the real focus of this case, have been adequately served.
In this latter respect, the court takes note again that Postal Service representatives attended meetings with the Board and Clinton residents (Kaufman Affidavit at para. 15); that the Postal Service was attentive and responsive to the Board's suggestion of alternative sites (Marcinek Affidavit, Exhibit 6); and that the Postal Service requested a statement of concerns regarding the Coss parcel, received a list of twelve items, and negotiated with the contractors to eliminate the problem areas at an additional federal expense of approximately $ 60,000 (Marcinek Affidavit at para. 9, Exhibits 7, 8). On this record, it is evident that the Postal Service complied amply with the purposes of the ICA.
It is obvious that the Clinton authorities are displeased with the Postal Service's selection of the Coss parcel for its new substation. The ICA, however, creates only an avenue for the expression of that sentiment and holds out no guarantee of relief or satisfaction. Nor does the ICA empower the township to overrule the selection of the Annandale site. County of Bergen v. Dole, 620 F. Supp. 1009, 1065 (D.N.J. 1985)(the ICA "does not require that a federal agency incorporate the views of local planning agencies, but rather requires such views to be fully considered"). Thus, the injunctive remedy sought by Clinton Township cannot emanate from the Postal Service's asserted failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 4231(b).
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and injunction will be denied. Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment dismissing the action will be granted. An order accompanies this opinion. No costs.