PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 29, 2012
Postal Service Accountability Act of 2012 - Directs the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), in making a determination whether to close or consolidate a post office, to consider the economic effects on the community served by such post office.
Increases from 60 to 120 days the waiting period during which the USPS is prohibited from taking action to close or consolidate a post office after its written determination is made available to persons served by such post office.
Establishes a waiting period and appeal procedures for USPS determinations to close or consolidate mail processing facilities. (Current law addresses such procedures only with respect to post offices.)
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permits facility employees or members of the community in which such a facility is located to appeal to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) any USPS determination to close or consolidate a mail processing facility.
Requires the USPS to consider, among other factors, whether a closing or consolidation is consistent with the policy to provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices are not self-sustaining.
Specifies, upon an appeal of a USPS determination to close or consolidate a post office or mail processing facility, that the PRC's authority to set aside the USPS determination includes a determination by the PRC that USPS conclusions with respect to specific factors are unsupported by substantial evidence on the record.
Prohibits the USPS, if an appeal is filed, from closing or consolidating a post office or mail processing facility without the written concurrence of at least three PRC Commissioners.
Requires the USPS, within one year after a post office or mail processing facility is closed or consolidated, to review and make public its findings in regard to the accuracy of its earlier findings and whether substitute services are meeting community needs.
People & committees
Rep. Rahall, Nick J., II [D-WV-3] · D–WV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4335 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4335 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4335 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4335 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.