C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER III—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS › PART 392—DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES › Subpart C—Stopped Commercial Motor Vehicles

49 C.F.R. § 392.22

Emergency signals; stopped commercial motor vehicles

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Hazard warning signal flashers. Whenever a commercial motor vehicle is stopped upon the traveled portion of a highway or the shoulder of a highway for any cause other than necessary traffic stops, the driver of the stopped commercial motor vehicle shall immediately activate the vehicular hazard warning signal flashers and continue the flashing until the driver places the warning devices required by paragraph (b) of this section. The flashing signals shall be used during the time the warning devices are picked up for storage before movement of the commercial motor vehicle. The flashing lights may be used at other times while a commercial motor vehicle is stopped in addition to, but not in lieu of, the warning devices required by paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Placement of warning devices—(1) General rule. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, whenever a commercial motor vehicle is stopped upon the traveled portion or the shoulder of a highway for any cause other than necessary traffic stops, the driver shall, as soon as possible, but in any event within 10 minutes, place the warning devices required by § 393.95 of this subchapter, in the following manner:

(i) One on the traffic side of and 4 paces (approximately 3 meters or 10 feet) from the stopped commercial motor vehicle in the direction of approaching traffic;

(ii) One at 40 paces (approximately 30 meters or 100 feet) from the stopped commercial motor vehicle in the center of the traffic lane or shoulder occupied by the commercial motor vehicle and in the direction of approaching traffic; and

(iii) One at 40 paces (approximately 30 meters or 100 feet) from the stopped commercial motor vehicle in the center of the traffic lane or shoulder occupied by the commercial motor vehicle and in the direction away from approaching traffic.

(2) Special rules—(i) Fusees. The driver of a commercial motor vehicle equipped with only fusees shall place a lighted fusee at each of the locations specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. There shall be at least one lighted fusee at each of the prescribed locations, as long as the commercial motor vehicle is stopped. Before the stopped commercial motor vehicle is moved, the driver shall extinguish and remove each fusee.

(ii) Daylight hours. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, during the period lighted lamps are not required, three bidirectional reflective triangles or three lighted fusees shall be placed as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section within a time of 10 minutes. In the event the driver elects to use only fusees in lieu of bidirectional reflective triangles or red flags, the driver must ensure that at least one fusee remains lighted at each of the prescribed locations as long as the commercial motor vehicle is stopped or parked.

(iii) Business or residential districts. The placement of warning devices is not required within the business or residential district of a municipality, except during the time lighted lamps are required and when street or highway lighting is insufficient to make a commercial motor vehicle clearly discernable at a distance of 500 feet to persons on the highway.

(iv) Hills, curves, and obstructions. If a commercial motor vehicle is stopped within 500 feet of a curve, crest of a hill, or other obstruction to view, the driver shall place the warning signal required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section in the direction of the obstruction to view a distance of 100 feet to 500 feet from the stopped commercial motor vehicle so as to afford ample warning to other users of the highway.

(v) Divided or one-way roads. If a commercial motor vehicle is stopped upon the traveled portion or the shoulder of a divided or one-way highway, the driver shall place the warning devices required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, one warning device at a distance of 200 feet and one warning device at a distance of 100 feet in a direction toward approaching traffic in the center of the lane or shoulder occupied by the commercial motor vehicle. He/she shall place one warning device at the traffic side of the commercial motor vehicle within 10 feet of the rear of the commercial motor vehicle.

(vi) Leaking, flammable material. If gasoline or any other flammable liquid, or combustible liquid or gas seeps or leaks from a fuel container or a commercial motor vehicle stopped upon a highway, no emergency warning signal producing a flame shall be lighted or placed except at such a distance from any such liquid or gas as will assure the prevention of a fire or explosion.

[37 FR 17175, Aug. 25, 1972, as amended at 40 FR 10685, Mar. 7, 1975; 47 FR 47837, Oct. 28, 1982; 48 FR 57139, Dec. 23, 1983; 59 FR 34711, July 6, 1994; 60 FR 38747, July 28, 1995; 63 FR 33279, June 18, 1998; 91 FR 7870, Feb. 19, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Reinicke v. Aeroground, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reinicke v. Aeroground, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Without referring to specific testimony or physical evidence in the record, the plurality concludes, there is no evidence that "failure to put out warning triangles was a cause of the accident." Apparently, the plurality discounts or does not fully appreciate the multiple…”
HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co. v. Carlile Transp. Sys., Inc., 426 P.3d 881 (Alaska 2018). · cites it 3× “HDI's primary theory of the case was that Carlile was vicariously liable for Neal's actions and that Neal was either common-law negligent or negligent per se for violating 49 C.F.R. § 392.22 , a federal highway regulation that applies to commercial drivers.”
Stong v. Freeman Truck Line, Inc., 456 So. 2d 698 (Miss. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 63-7-71 (1) (1972); 49 C.F.R. § 392.22 (b) (1983). There are state and federal counterparts for each standard.”
Mansfield v. Colonial Freight Sys., 862 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “§§ 55-9-103 , -104 (1988) and 49 C.F.R. § 392.22 (1992) require drivers of stopped vehicles to place warning devices behind their vehicles.”
Kimberlin v. PM Transp., Inc., 563 S.E.2d 665 (Va. 2002). · cites it 2× “2-111 and 49 C.F.R. § 392.22 (1995). Code § 46.2-111 provides, in pertinent part, that, whenever a vehicle used for the transportation of flammable liquids in bulk is disabled and stops on a highway, the operator shall place or cause to be placed certain warning devices, among…”
Bradley Baumann v. Vladimir Zhukov, 802 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 392.22 (b). At 4:34 a.m., a semi-tractor-trailer driven by Keith Johnson crashed into the rear of Zhukov’s trailer.”
Inman v. Howe Freightways, Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 172459 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “Notably, federal law required truck drivers to be equipped with reflective warning triangles, flares, or fusees and to use those warning devices, which the evidence established was most often the triangles, when their trucks have stopped on the shoulder of the highway for more…”
Reid v. Midwest Transp., 607 S.E.2d 170 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “4 As required by 49 CFR § 392.22 (a). 5 49 CFR § 392.22 (b) (1) requires placement of warning devices “as soon as possible, but in any event within 10 minutes.”
Drummond v. Mid-West Growers Coop. Corp., 542 P.2d 198 (Nev. 1975). · cites it 2× “22, 49 C.F.R. § 392.22 (1974)], 2 Hill had not placed the required three flares, lanterns, or reflectors at distances of 10, 100, and 200 feet, respectively, to the rear of his disabled vehicle in the blocked lane.”
Sandberg Trucking, Inc., & Kimiel Horn v. Brittany M. Johnson, 76 N.E.3d 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “49 C.F.R. § 392.22 . Appellants countered that Section 392.”
Thomas v. McDonald, 667 So. 2d 594 (Miss. 1995). “In Stong , we applied the ten-minute time limit used in the federal regulations for interstate highways pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 392.22(b)(1), holding that "[w]here there is a conflict in the evidence and where more than one reasonable interpretation may be given the facts, whether…”
Hageman v. TSI, INC., 786 P.2d 452 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “1980) (violation of 49 C.F.R. § 392.22 is presumptive negligence); Wallace v.”
Show all 47 citing cases →
— 49 C.F.R. § 392.22(b) — 1 case
Francisco Javier Garza, Jr. v. Fred Andrew Pullen, & Am. Midwest Transp. LLC (Tex. App. 2022).
— 49 C.F.R. § 392.22(b)(1) — 2 cases
Thomas v. McDonald, 667 So. 2d 594 (Miss. 1995). “In Stong , we applied the ten-minute time limit used in the federal regulations for interstate highways pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 392.22(b)(1), holding that "[w]here there is a conflict in the evidence and where more than one reasonable interpretation may be given the facts, whether…”
Merzigian v. Sunbury Transp., Ltd., 523 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Mass. 2007).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.