Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 429.0

529US2

Unit: $U45

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

354

NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. v. SHANKLIN

Opinion of the Court

Federal-aid funds participate in the installation of the de-
vices.”

23 CFR § 646.214(b)(3)(i) (1999).

Sections 646.214(b)(3) and (4) therefore establish a stand-
ard of adequacy that “determine[s] the devices to be in-
stalled” when federal funds participate in the crossing im-
If a
provement project. Easterwood, 507 U. S., at 671.
crossing presents those conditions listed in (b)(3), the State
must install automatic gates and ﬂashing lights; if the (b)(3)
factors are absent, (b)(4) dictates that the decision as to what
devices to install is subject to FHWA approval. See id., at
670–671.
In either case, § 646.214(b)(3) or (4) “is applicable”
and determines the type of warning device that is “ade-
quate” under federal law. As a result, once the FHWA has
funded the crossing improvement and the warning devices
are actually installed and operating, the regulation “dis-
place[s] state and private decisionmaking authority by estab-
lishing a federal-law requirement that certain protective de-
Id., at 670.
vices be installed or federal approval obtained.”
Importantly, this is precisely the interpretation of
§§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) that the FHWA endorsed in Easter-
wood. Appearing as amicus curiae, the Government ex-
plained that § 646.214(b) “establishes substantive standards
for what constitutes adequate safety devices on grade cross-
ing improvement projects ﬁnanced with federal
funds.”
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in CSX Transp.,
Inc. v. Easterwood, O. T. 1992, Nos. 91–790 and 91–1206, p. 23.
As a result, §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) “cover the subject matter
of adequate safety devices at crossings that have been im-
Ibid. More speciﬁ-
proved with the use of federal funds.”
cally, the Government stated that § 646.214(b)

“requires gate arms in certain circumstances, and re-
quires FHWA approval of the safety devices in all other
circumstances. Thus, the warning devices in place at a
crossing improved with the use of federal funds have, by
deﬁnition, been speciﬁcally found to be adequate under a
regulation issued by the Secretary. Any state rule that