PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 7, 2011
Rural County Mandate Relief Act of 2011 - Prohibits the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) from issuing, implementing, or enforcing a minimum retroreflectivity level standard for a traffic control device under the jurisdiction of a state or local government.
Directs the Secretary to modify the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2009 Edition, to eliminate federal minimum retroreflectivity level standards for traffic control devices and the schedule for their implementation. (Replacement of regulatory, warning, and post-mounted guide [except street name] signs is required by January 22, 2015. Replacement of street name signs and overhead guide signs is required by January 22, 2018.)
Repeals the requirement that the Secretary revise the Manual to include a federal standard for a minimum level of retroreflectivity for pavement markings and signs on all public roads.
People & committees
Rep. Cravaack, Chip [R-MN-8] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.2442 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.2442 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.2442 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.2442 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.