H.R. 2257: To waive the requirement that existing traffic signs meet minimum retroreflectivity standards on or before the compliance dates established by the Federal Highway Administration.

112th Congress · introduced 2011-06-21 · Transportation and Public Works · Latest: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2011-06-21 · official record
Who proposed it: Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN-3] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

To waive the requirement that existing traffic signs meet minimum retroreflectivity standards on or before the compliance dates established by the Federal Highway Administration.

Plain summary

Waives compliance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) minimum retroreflectivity standards by existing traffic control devices on or before the compliance dates established by the FHWA. Exempts from this waiver (thus requiring compliance with such standards by) traffic control devices installed on or after enactment of this Act. (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.)

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

To waive the requirement that existing traffic signs meet minimum retroreflectivity standards on or before the compliance dates established by the Federal Highway Administration.

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN-3] · 34 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

Cosponsors on this site

Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Tim Walberg (R-MI), James Lankford (R-OK), John R. Carter (R-TX), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Robert E. Latta (R-OH), Brett Guthrie (R-KY)

Sponsor's campaign money: Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN-3] reported raising $2.7 million (2025–2026). Details. Shown for context only; it does not mean any donor supported this bill.

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-112hr2257.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/112/hr>

Record fed-us-cong112-hr2257 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong112 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong112