Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 433

529US2

Unit: $U45

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

358

NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. v. SHANKLIN

Opinion of the Court

MUTCD, that pre-empts state tort actions. Whether the
State should have originally installed different or additional
devices, or whether conditions at the crossing have since
changed such that automatic gates and ﬂashing lights would
be appropriate, is immaterial to the pre-emption question.
It should be noted that nothing prevents a State from re-
visiting the adequacy of devices installed using federal funds.
States are free to install more protective devices at such
crossings with their own funds or with additional funding
from the FHWA. What States cannot do—once they have
installed federally funded devices at a particular crossing—
is hold the railroad responsible for the adequacy of those de-
vices. The dissent objects that this bestows on railroads a
“double windfall”: The Federal Government pays for the in-
stallation of the devices, and the railroad is simultaneously
absolved of state tort liability. Post, at 360–361. But the
same is true of the result urged by respondent and the Gov-
ernment. Respondent and the Government acknowledge
that §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) can pre-empt state tort law, but
they argue that pre-emption only occurs when the State has
installed the devices pursuant to a diagnostic team’s analysis
of the crossing in question. Under this reading, railroads
would receive the same “double windfall”—federal funding
of the devices and pre-emption of state tort law—so long as
a diagnostic team has evaluated the crossing. The supposed
conferral of a “windfall” on the railroads therefore casts no
doubt on our construction of the regulation.

Sections 646.214(b)(3) and (4) “cover the subject matter”
of the adequacy of warning devices installed with the partici-
pation of federal funds. As a result, the FRSA pre-empts
respondent’s state tort claim that the advance warning
signs and reﬂectorized crossbucks installed at the Oakwood
Church Road crossing were inadequate. Because the TDOT
used federal funds for the signs’ installation, §§ 646.214(b)(3)
and (4) governed the selection and installation of the devices.
And because the TDOT determined that warning devices