The bill designates the United States Postal Service facility at 15422 NY 104 in Martville, New York, as the "Sergeant Staret J. Engleston Memorial Post Office Building." It also contains a clause that any reference to the facility in federal law, maps, regulations, documents, or records be treated as referring to the newly named building.
The measure is a narrowly targeted, ceremonial naming statute: it does not change property rights, alter the postal address or delivery operations, or appropriate funds. Its practical consequences are administrative — updating signage, federal inventories, mapping databases and printed materials — and those implementation costs are not funded in the bill.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill assigns an official, memorial name to a specific USPS facility and requires that federal references to that facility use the new name. It contains two operative clauses: (a) the formal naming; and (b) a references provision that treats existing references as referring to the memorial name.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the United States Postal Service (which controls facility signage and internal records), federal agencies that maintain maps and property inventories, Martville municipal officials and the honoree’s family and local veterans' organizations. Mail delivery operations and private carriers are not substantively changed.
Why It Matters
Naming bills are routine but legally consequential for records management: the references clause creates a single authoritative name for legal citations, maps and regulations. The bill also imposes modest, unfunded administrative tasks on the USPS and other record-keeping agencies, and it contributes to the body of statutory memorials that federal agencies must track and implement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This is a focused statute that does one thing: it gives the USPS facility at 15422 NY 104 in Martville, New York, a memorial name. The bill lists the address, specifies the memorial designation, and directs that any federal reference to that facility be treated as a reference to the memorial name.
It does not change the facility’s operations, postal routes, ownership, or legal description beyond the name.
Practically speaking, passage would require the Postal Service to update its internal facility name, replace or install exterior and interior signage as appropriate, and update online listings and printed directories. Federal agencies that publish maps or maintain inventories of federal property — for example, the General Services Administration and the Government Publishing Office — will also need to revise their records so that the memorial name is the authoritative label in government materials.The bill contains no appropriation or express direction to fund implementation.
That means the USPS and any other agencies responsible for making changes must absorb the costs within existing budgets unless a separate appropriation follows. The statute’s references clause is broad: it treats laws, maps, regulations and other records that currently name the facility as referring to the memorial name, which minimizes future ambiguity but can require retroactive edits in published materials.Although the act is ceremonial, it matters administratively.
Federal databases, GIS layers, regulatory citations and printed documents use the official name; a statutory naming creates a legal anchor for future citations and reduces disputes over what to call the facility in government contexts. The bill does not create new rights, change addresses for mail delivery, or alter property ownership.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill names the USPS facility at 15422 NY 104 in Martville, New York, the "Sergeant Staret J. Engleston Memorial Post Office Building.", Section (a) contains the operative naming directive; Section (b) declares that any federal reference to the facility shall be treated as referring to the memorial name.
The bill does not appropriate funds or authorize expenditures; it imposes implementation tasks without a funding provision.
Implementation will require updates to USPS signage, internal records, federal property inventories, and public maps and directories.
The bill text shows a drafting inconsistency in the honoree’s surname spelling between different lines, creating a minor but fixable ambiguity for administrative implementation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Formal designation of the facility
This subsection is the substantive naming provision: it identifies the facility by street address and assigns the memorial name. For implementation, the Postal Service will treat that statutory phrase as the facility’s official title in government contexts. The clause is descriptive and does not purport to transfer property, change the facility’s postal address, or alter operational responsibilities.
References clause — makes the new name authoritative
This subsection instructs that any reference in law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other United States record to the facility be deemed to refer to the memorial name. Mechanically, this reduces ambiguity about which building a future regulation or statute cites, but it also requires agencies and publishers to reconcile historical materials and update electronic databases to reflect the statutory name.
Ceremonial nature and limits of effect
The bill’s caption and short text make clear it is a ceremonial naming statute: it does not create obligations beyond changing nomenclature. There is no appropriation, no schedule for sign replacement, and no direction to change mailing addresses. That means implementation logistics — who pays for signs, how soon records are altered, and whether local use adopts the name — are handled administratively, not by the statute itself.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Martville community and local civic groups — gain a formal, federal recognition that can be used in local ceremonies, community branding, and historical records.
- The honoree’s family and veterans’ organizations — receive an official, enduring public acknowledgment of Sergeant Staret J. Engleston in a federal venue.
- Members of Congress who sponsored the bill and local officials — obtain a formal record of advocacy and constituent service that can be cited in communications, commemorations, and constituent outreach.
Who Bears the Cost
- United States Postal Service — must update facility signage, internal records and public-facing listings out of existing operational budgets unless Congress appropriates money.
- Federal agencies that maintain maps and property inventories (e.g., GSA, GPO) — face staff time and database edit costs to align records with the new statutory name.
- Local governments or civic organizations hosting dedication events — may incur event costs (permits, ceremonies, security) that are typically covered locally rather than by the federal government.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between symbolic recognition and administrative cost and coherence: the bill advances a locally important honor that creates an authoritative federal label, but it imposes small, unfunded record‑keeping and signage tasks and contributes to an expanding roster of memorial names that agencies must manage. Respecting local commemoration competes with the practical need to keep federal records consistent, funded, and unambiguous.
The bill is short and straightforward, but several implementation questions matter. First, the statute contains no funding mechanism, so any sign replacement, printed-material revisions, or vendor updates must be absorbed by the USPS or other agencies within existing appropriations.
In practice those costs are small, but if multiple naming bills pass in a session they aggregate into a measurable administrative burden.
Second, the references clause is broad and useful for avoiding future naming disputes, yet it also creates work: agencies must search and revise a wide array of documents and electronic records. That task raises practical questions about scope (which legacy materials must be changed), priority, and timing.
Finally, the bill text appears to contain inconsistent spellings of the honoree’s surname in different lines; resolving that discrepancy will require an administrative correction or a technical amendment to ensure the memorial name is consistently recorded across government systems.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.