What changed between these versions
A substantive expansion and restructuring. V2 retains the pilot program for cost-defrayment agreements from v1 (now Section 3) but significantly expands the bill by introducing a comprehensive new administrative process in Section 2 for all State, local, and Tribal government ZIP code modification requests, including detailed criteria, decision requirements, resubmission rules, and an appeals process. The short title was also slightly modified.
Overview
Extensive changes throughout the bill, primarily through the addition of new sections and a restructuring of the original content. · V2 significantly expands the scope of the bill by establishing a broader administrative process for ZIP code modifications, while also clarifying the overall intent with a new rules of construction section.
The most significant change in v2 is the addition of a new Section 2, which establishes a comprehensive administrative process for State, local, and Tribal government requests to modify ZIP codes, including specific criteria for consideration, requirements for written rationales for denials, and an appeals process. This new section broadens the scope beyond the cost-defrayment pilot program that was the sole focus of v1. The original pilot program from v1 is retained almost entirely as Section 3 in v2, and a new Section 4 provides rules of construction.
Major additions
This subsection introduces four key definitions: 'financial costs' (direct and indirect costs to the Postal Service for implementing a modification), 'local government' (referencing 39 U.S.C. 3702), 'Postal Service' (United States Postal Service), and 'ZIP code' (multi-digit mail code for delivery areas).
These definitions provide clarity and a standardized understanding of critical terms used throughout the newly established administrative process for ZIP code modifications, ensuring consistent application and interpretation.
Mandates the Postal Service to establish and make public, within 180 days of enactment, an administrative process for State, local, and Tribal government requests to modify ZIP codes within their jurisdiction, either by amending existing boundaries or establishing new ones.
This creates a formal, transparent, and publicly accessible pathway for governments to initiate ZIP code changes, which was not explicitly defined or mandated in v1. It shifts from a reactive, cost-focused approach to a proactive, process-driven one.
Specifies the mandatory criteria the administrative process must include for considering ZIP code modification requests: feasibility and impact on Postal Service operations/network, financial costs to the Postal Service, and an assessment of foreseeable need for future address changes.
These criteria provide a structured framework for evaluating requests, ensuring that decisions are based on operational realities, financial prudence, and long-term planning, offering transparency to applicants.
Requires the administrative process to permit the Postal Service to consider and implement appropriate ZIP code modifications and to provide a written rationale for any denial, including whether financial costs were a factor and the estimated cost if so.
This ensures accountability and transparency in the Postal Service's decision-making, providing requestors with clear reasons for denials and an understanding of potential financial barriers.
Mandates the Postal Service to designate a specific individual to act as the point of contact for State, local, or Tribal governments submitting ZIP code modification requests.
This streamlines communication and provides a dedicated resource for requestors, improving the efficiency and user-friendliness of the modification process.
Establishes rules for resubmission of requests: prohibiting identical or substantially similar requests for 5 years after denial, allowing alternative requests, and permitting resubmission of requests denied in the 10 years preceding the Act's enactment, regardless of similarity.
This balances the need to prevent repetitive, burdensome requests with providing an opportunity for previously denied requests to be reconsidered under the new process. The retroactive allowance is particularly significant for past applicants.
Requires the administrative process to include procedures for an appeals process for denied requests, mandating appeals be submitted within 45 days of denial and allowing only one appeal per request.
This provides a crucial mechanism for governments to challenge adverse decisions, ensuring a fair and thorough review of their requests and adding a layer of oversight to the process.
This section provides rules of construction, clarifying that while the Act establishes the administrative process (Section 2) and the pilot program (Section 3), it does not diminish the existing authority of the United States Postal Service as provided by law, including its powers related to mail operations and facilities.
This ensures that the new processes and programs do not inadvertently limit or supersede the Postal Service's fundamental operational authorities, providing legal clarity and preventing unintended consequences.
Modifications
This is a minor, stylistic change to the bill's official name, adding an emphasis on 'Partnership' in the title. It does not alter any operative provisions or legal effects.
Before
The Act may be cited as the 'Community Involvement in Zone Improvement Plans Act of 2025' or the 'CIPZIP Act of 2025'.
After
The Act may be cited as the 'Community Involvement and Partnership in Zone Improvement Plans Act of 2025' or the 'CIPZIP Act of 2025'.
This is a minor, stylistic change for conciseness. It does not alter the reporting requirements or the entity responsible for reporting, as 'Postal Service' is defined in Section 2(a)(3) of v2 as the United States Postal Service.
Before
The annual report by the Postal Regulatory Commission must include 'the number of requests the United States Postal Service has received for a ZIP code boundary change or realignment...'
After
The annual report by the Postal Regulatory Commission must include 'the number of requests the Postal Service has received for a ZIP code boundary change or realignment...'
Scope
Meaningful expansion or narrowing — Changes are scattered throughout the bill, primarily involving the introduction of two new sections (Section 2 and Section 4) and the renumbering of the original content from v1 into Section 3. — V2 represents a meaningful expansion of policy direction. While v1 focused solely on a pilot program for cost-defrayment in ZIP code changes, v2 introduces a comprehensive, mandatory administrative process for all ZIP code modification requests, regardless of cost considerations, and adds an appeals mechanism. — The new Section 2 establishes a general administrative process that would interact with and potentially precede the specific cost-defrayment pilot program outlined in Section 3 (the original content of v1). Section 4 clarifies that these new processes do not diminish existing USPS authority.
Impact analysis
State, local, and Tribal governments requesting ZIP code modifications
Gains new procedural rights, increased transparency, and a formal appeals mechanism, making the process more accessible and accountable.
In v1, these governments primarily had access to a pilot program focused on defraying costs for denials based on net cost. In v2, they now have a formal, publicly established administrative process (Section 2) for all ZIP code modification requests, with clear criteria, a designated point of contact, and a right to appeal denials.
State, local, and Tribal governments whose ZIP code modification requests were denied in the 10 years preceding the Act's enactment
Gains a new opportunity for reconsideration of past requests.
Under v1, there was no explicit provision for resubmitting previously denied requests. V2's Section 2(b)(2)(D)(iii) specifically permits these governments to resubmit their requests, even if substantially similar to the original denial.
The United States Postal Service
Experiences increased administrative burden and formalized procedural requirements, but also gains a clearer framework for managing requests.
V1 mandated a pilot program. V2 mandates the establishment of a comprehensive administrative process for all ZIP code modification requests (Section 2), including specific criteria, written rationales for denials, a designated public contact, and an appeals process.