The U.S. Department of Transportation was correct in repealing a rule requiring municipalities across the nation to upgrade traffic signs to meet federal reflectivity standards.

The rule was an overreach by Washington that presented a major financial challenge to many municipalities, despite the good intent behind the requirement.

If the rule had been allowed to stand, time would have revealed how many municipalities nationwide would have been hard-pressed, or even financially unable, to comply. Perhaps there would have been some in Butler County.

It also was not out of the question that officials in some municipalities — maybe even some here — would have balked at compliance because of leaders’ attitude that bureaucrats in Washington should mind their own business regarding such matters.

Regardless of municipalities’ attitude toward the now-repealed federal mandate, one positive result from the reflectivity edict was that it caused communities to pay more attention to the condition of their signs.

Despite the sign-replacement flexibility that towns now gain, a good number of places, as a result of the edict, probably will beef up efforts to replace those signs that they have discovered are not in good condition.

In places like Cranberry and Middlesex townships and Zelienople, officials reacted to the edict seriously and responsibly and were well on their way to having their municipalities in compliance with what the federal government was demanding.

Those and other communities that also were well on their way toward compliance have grounds now for feeling upset that the rule has been lifted for others, because of the money they’ve spent. But in announcing withdrawal of the controversial regulations, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was correct in describing them as burdensome, with the potential to cost communities across the nation millions of dollars in unnecessary expenses.

The federal Transportation Department was correct in keeping 12 sign-upgrade deadlines in place for signs critical to public safety, such as for one-way roadways and places where “yield” signs are necessary.

But the elimination of 46 deadlines that had been in place dealing with such things as reflectivity and larger lettering will allow municipalities to address their sign issues as needed and as local finances permit, not on “Big Brother’s” perception of what’s right and what’s not.

Referring to his decision, LaHood said, “It’s just plain common sense.”

Too bad those who drew up the rules took a detour around that basic principle that should guide all government decisions and edicts.

There should be no delay by communities in replacing worn-out or damaged signs. However, it was wrong for the federal government to demand the scale of sign replacement that the former requirement dictated.

Some of the signs that would have had to be replaced were in good condition, but were just under the minimum reflectivity that the federal rule arbitrarily had deemed necessary.

The federal limits under the now-repealed rule are not necessary in all places and under all conditions.

Communities shouldn’t ignore deteriorated signs or signs not sufficient for what they’re intended to accomplish.

But judgment on what’s good and what’s not in communities across the land should be a local decision, unless the federal government provides the money to carry out the feds’ wishes.

Judging from cries for curtailing federal spending, the arrival of such money isn’t likely at any time soon.