Document: 529 U.S. 344120 1467146 L.Ed.2d 374 Syllabus SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.v.SHANKLIN, individually and as next friend of SHANKLIN CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 99-312. Argued March 1, 2000 Decided April 17, The Federal Railroad Safety Act 1970 (FRSA) authorizes the Secretary Transportation to promulgate regulations issue orders for railroad safety, it requires maintain a coordinated effort solve grade crossing problems. FRSA also has an express pre-emption provision. One regulation promulgated by Secretary, through Highway Administration (FHWA), addresses adequacy warning devices installed under Railway-Highway Crossings Program (Crossings Program). That program provides funds States construction such pursuant 1973. According regulation, adequate using federal funds, where any several conditions are present, automatic gates flashing lights. 23 CFR 646.214(b)(3). For crossings those not State's decision about what install is subject FHWA approval. 646.214(b)(4). Respondent's husband was killed when petitioner's train hit his vehicle at with advance signs reflectorized crossbucks that Tennessee Department (TDOT) had Program. were fully compliant applicable standards. Respondent brought diversity wrongful death action in court, alleging petitioner negligent in, among other things, failing crossing. District Court denied summary judgment motion, holding did pre-empt respondent's inadequate device claim. After trial, jury awarded respondent damages on this negligence issues. Sixth Circuit affirmed. Held: FRSA, conjunction 646.214(b)(3) (4), pre-empts state tort claims concerning railroad's failure have participated devices' installation. In CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 658, 670, held that, because (4) "establish requirements installation particular devices," "when they applicable, law pre-empted." Thus, sole question here whether "are applicable" all actually funds. Easterwood answers well, (b)(3) mandatory devices. Id., 666. They establish standard determines type be participate improvement project. Once approved funded operating, displaces private decisionmaking authority federal-law requirement. Importantly, precisely interpretation endorsed Easterwood. Government's position herethat only apply been selected based diagnostic studies particularized analyses crossing's conditionsis entitled deference, contradicts regulation's plain text well FHWA's own previous adopted authoritative argument does presented factors, TDOT pavement markings required Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices, misconceives how operates these circumstances. If 696.214(b)(3) addressing same subject. Whether State should originally different or additional devices, since changed would appropriate, immaterial. Nothing prevents from revisiting installing more protective their funding, but cannot hold responsible Pp. 6-14.173 F.3d 386, reversed remanded. O'Connor, J., delivered opinion Court, which Rehnquist, C. Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion. Ginsburg, dissenting opinion, Stevens, Opinion 1 NOTICE: This formal revision before publication preliminary print United Reports. Readers arerequested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme States, Washington, D. 20543, typographical otherformal errors, order corrections may made goes press. 99-312 2 COMPANY, PETITIONERv.DEDRA SHANKLIN, individually, jessie guy shanklin 3 ON WRIT 4 [April 2000] 5 Justice O'Connor Court. 6 case involves against due its alleged western Tennessee. her accident, suit petitioner, operator involved collision. claimed posted crossing, insufficient warn motorists danger posed passing trains. specific we must decide 1970, 84 Stat. 971, amended, 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq., Administration's actions respondent's. We does. 7 * A 8 Congress enacted "to promote safety every area operations reduce railroad-related accidents incidents." 20101. grants "prescribe safety," 20103(a), directs "maintain develop carry out solutions problem," 20134(a). contains provision, states: 9 "Laws, regulations, related shall nationally uniform extent practicable. adopt continue force law, until prescribes issues covering matter requirement." 20106. 10 Although provision exception, see ibid., inapplicable here. 11 Three years after 1973, 203, 87 283, which, created Program), 130. makes available "cost projects elimination hazards railway-highway crossings." 130(a). To Program, "conduct systematically survey highways identify require separation, relocation, implement schedule purpose." 130(d). must, "[a]t minimum, provide Ibid. 12 implementing 646.214(b) (1999), design improvements. More specifically, address program.* 646.214(b)(3), "[a]dequte project Federal-aid include light signals" if present. Those (A) "[m]ultiple main line tracks," (B) multiple tracks vicinity one might "obscure movement another approaching crossing," (C) high speed trains combined limited sight distances, (D) "combination speeds moderately volumes highway traffic," (E) use "substantial numbers schoolbuses trucks carrying hazardous materials," (F) "diagnostic team recommends them." 646.214(b)(3)(i). Subsection (b)(4) states "[f]or installed, determination regulatory agency, and/or railroad, approval FHWA." listed exist, And B 13 Shortly a.m. October 3, 1993, Eddie Shanklin drove truck eastward Oakwood Church Road Gibson County, App. Pet. Cert. 28a. As crossed intersect road, he struck operated petitioner. At time equipped crossbucks, id., 34a, familiar black-and-white, X-shaped read "RAILROAD CROSSING," Dept. Transportation, Administration, Devices 8B-2 (1988) (MUTCD). 1987 received 3a. requested part 196 counties. See 128-131. request contained information each covered project, including presence absence factors 134. accounted 99% cost crossings, 133. It undisputed standards accident. 14 Following Mr. Shanklin's widow, Dedra Shanklin, Western 29-34. statutory common law. 31-33. She respects, Petitioner moved ground pre-empted suit. allegation pre-empted. 29a-37a. thus claim three allegations jury, found both negligent. 47. assigned 70% responsibility 30% assessed $615,379. accordingly entered $430,765.30 respondent. 48. 15 Appeals affirmed, inadequate. 173 386 (1999). reasoned funding alone trigger (4). 394. Instead, "applied" issue, meaning affirmatively safety. 397. court concluded purpose providing "minimum protection" there no individualized adequacy. 16 granted certiorari, 528 __ resolve conflict Courts virtue Compare Ingram Inc., 146 858 (CA11 1998) (holding triggers FRSA); Armijo Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 1188 (CA10 1996) (same); Elrod Burlington Northern 68 241 (CA8 1995) Hester 61 382 (CA5 (same), cert. denied, 516 1093 (1996), (CA6 1999) (case below); Shots 38 304 (CA7 1994) (no representative Government determined safety). II 17 previously addressed pre-emptive effect 658 (1993). case, explained language FRSA's dictates "cover" matter, merely " aetouch upon' aerelate to' matter." 664; "pre-emption will lie substantially subsume relevant law." supra, 664. Applying standard, pt. 924 general terms bargain between Governments" pre-emptive. U.S., 667. 646.214(b)(1), traffic control comply MUTCD, actions. 668-670. "provides description of, rather than prescription for, allocation Governments railroads," hence "disavows cover body 669-670. 18 With respect however, reached conclusion. Because 670. Unlike "646.214(b)(3) displace establishing requirement certain obtained." result, "effectively set railroads 19 itself, ultimately plaintiff's here, plaintiff maintained 661. obtained never accident occurred. 671-673. Nonetheless, clear do apply, "cover like relies, seeks impose independent duty repair dangerous 671. then, 20 believe well. original could plausibly being purely definitional, federally requiring meet standard. rejected approach, spelled "[F]or involve aeFederal-aid [warning] devices,' specify installed." 666 (emphasis added). accepted scope plain: "any devices." (3)(i) 21 Sections therefore "determine[s] installed" presents (b)(3), lights; absent, 670-671. either "is "adequate" once "displace[s] 22 Appearing amicus curiae, "establishes substantive constitutes financed funds." Brief Amicus Curiae O.T. 1992, Nos. 91-790 91-1206, p. 23. improved stated "requires gate arms circumstances, place have, definition, specifically issued Secretary. Any rule necessary preempted." 24. understanding application agency administering years. 24 now argue 16, 24; (hereinafter States). contend comprises two distinct programsthe "priority" "hazard" program. 1-7; 15-21. Under program, argue, obtain equip bare minimum without adequate. 5-7, 30-36; contrast, teams conduct assessments officials make judgments criteria 34-35; 18-21. applied decisional process mandated (b)(3). 16; 18-25. Only then prescribed 25 construction, text. distinction so-called Nor applicability depend official. Rather, itself brief, "comprehensive scope." 12. Section 646.214(b)(3)(i) (1999) 646.214(b)(4) applies specified Either way, "substantially subsume[s] 26 contrary "specify generally "an agency's substantial deference," Pauley BethEnergy Mines, 501 680, 698 (1991), deference appropriate Not inconsistent Robertson Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 332, 359 (1989), cf. Maislin Industries, Primary Steel, 497 116, 131 (1990) ("Once statute's meaning, adhere doctrine stare decisis, judge later statute our prior meaning"). 27 dissent contends holding, even though "[n]o authority, state, place" "adequate protect safety." Post, (opinion J.). presupposes fulfilled obligation subsections follow determining used. argues "sufficient" pre-emption, statement preemptive remained open reconsideration case." 2. But not, fact, leave open. behest FHWA, clearly participation 28 MUTCD. 20-22, 36; Opposition 6-8. When approves installs point, "the means selection." displacement adequacy, adherence lights immaterial question. 29 noted nothing free FHWA. What doonce crossingis objects bestows "double windfall": pays simultaneously absolved liability. true result urged Government. acknowledge can occurs team's analysis reading, receive windfall"federal lawso long evaluated supposed conferral "windfall" casts doubt regulation. 30 matter" used signs' installation, governed selection displaced subject, thereby pre-empting 31 reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent 32 so ordered. 33 concurring. 34 I agree Ginsburg "common sense sound policy" suggest claiming circumstance remains (dissenting opinion). legal power more. And, majority points out, ante, 8-12, do, morewhen (1993), faithfully replicates earlier interpretation. So read, say spent regulations' across board seeking installed. 671; need reconsider Court's easily avoid sought. simply change example, specifying money sometimes "minimum," "adequate," programs, programs lack force. amend achieve commonsense seeks. understanding, join majority's 35 whom Stevens joins, dissenting. 36 fatal occurred lights, basic provided Rail-Highway aimed ensure would, . 130d. No scene County distinguished minimum. Nevertheless, today holds wholesale improvements throughout west counties preempts individual recover Tennessee, least protection, stopped crossings. 37 upshot fill void. outcome defies policy. already pay share 646.210(b)(1) Today achieved double windfall: foots bill devices; expenditure spares liability, inadequacy designed secure "minimum" protection envisioned Counsel Norfolk Southern Railway correctly conceded oral statutes compel releasing meeting 5, fail protection. road enact clarifying point. (Breyer, concurring). persuasively Seventh (1994) (Posner, J.), reiterated instant necessitate ouster commands. claimant prevailed, dispositively preemption, sufficient so. fact subsidize 671-673, participate. admittedly unclear dictate authorization tantamount funded. think administration's curiae estops taking view now. reasoning affirm Appeals' judgment. Notes 39 1. full: 40 --(3)(i) Adequate 646.214(b)(2) signals following exist: 41 --(A) Multiple tracks. 42 --(B) occupied locomotive obscure 43 --(C) High Speed operation distance single track 44 --(D) combination traffic. 45 --(E) volume vehicular traffic, number movements, materials, unusually restricted distance, continuing occurrences, conditions. 46 --(F) them. 47 --(ii) cases justifies find above applicable. 48 --(4)

Category: 9