Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 430.0

529US2

Unit: $U45

[09-26-01 10:03:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 344 (2000)

355

Opinion of the Court

more or different crossing devices were necessary at a
Id.,
federally funded crossing is therefore preempted.”
at 24.

Thus, Easterwood adopted the FHWA’s own understanding
of the application of §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4), a regulation that
the agency had been administering for 17 years.

Respondent and the Government now argue that
§§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) are more limited in scope and only
apply where the warning devices have been selected based
on diagnostic studies and particularized analyses of the con-
ditions at the crossing. See Brief for Respondent 16, 24;
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22 (hereinafter
Brief for United States). They contend that the Crossings
Program actually comprises two distinct programs—the
“minimum protection” program and the “priority” or “haz-
ard” program. See Brief for Respondent 1–7; Brief for
United States 15–21. Under the “minimum protection” pro-
gram, they argue, States obtain federal funds merely to
equip crossings with advance warning signs and reﬂectorized
crossbucks, the bare minimum required by the MUTCD,
without any judgment as to whether the signs are adequate.
See Brief for Respondent 5–7, 30–36; Brief for United States
15–21. Under the “priority” or “hazard” program, in con-
trast, diagnostic teams conduct individualized assessments of
particular crossings, and state or FHWA ofﬁcials make spe-
ciﬁc judgments about the adequacy of the warning devices
using the criteria set out in § 646.214(b)(3). See Brief for
for United States 18–21.
Respondent 5–7, 34–35; Brief
They therefore contend that (b)(3) and (4) only apply to de-
vices installed under the “priority” or “hazard” program,
when a diagnostic team has actually applied the decisional
process mandated by (b)(3). See Brief for Respondent 16;
Brief for United States 18–25. Only then has the regulation
prescribed a federal standard for the adequacy of the warn-
ing devices that displaces state law covering the same
subject.