and (4), certain warning devices are to be installed. See Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 666, 113 S.Ct. 1732. For crossings that are not covered by § 646.214(b)(3), “the type of warning device to be installed, whether the determination is made by a State ... agency, and/or the railroad, is subject to the approval of the FHWA.” 23 C.F.R. § 646.214(b)(4); see also Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 667, 670, 113 S.Ct. 1732. The Court concluded that §§ 214(b)(3) and (4) covered the subject matter of warning devices at grade crossings for projects in which federal funds participated in the installation of warning devices such that state regulation of such warning devices was preempted. See id. at 670-71, 113 S.Ct. 1732; see also Thiele v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 68 F.3d 179, 184-85 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); accord Rice, 955 F.Supp. at 741 (holding that
holding  646214b3 and 4 preempt state law adequacy of warnings claims when federal funds are used to install warning devices at crossings and devices are installed and fully operational holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding that federal law did not preempt state law policy procurementbased claims unlike claims handling disputes governed as here by federal regulations