Client Alerts & Insights
Reefer Madness and Beyond – What Happens in California Doesn’t Stay in California
May 7, 2018
Authored By:
On April 18, 2018, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) issued a press release touting $152K they are collecting to “fund air pollution research, improve children’s health and install air monitors.” The money comes from two out-of-state companies, Marten (Marten Transport Logistics, LLC, Marten Transport Services, LTD., and Marten Transport, LTD.) and Roadrunner Transportation System. Marten and Roadrunner were accused by CARB of failing to verify that trucks they hire for service in California were compliant with California’s Truck and Bus Regulation.
According CARB, “We do everything in our power to protect Californians from high polluting vehicles and their many negative health impacts, including enforcement of our strict laws.”
Most companies in the transportation industry have been aware that California has strict regulations regarding Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs or “reefers”.) However, CARB regulations apply not only to reefers, but to almost any vehicle with a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulations apply to, but are not limited to, shippers, brokers, freight forwarders, and carriers.
CARB accused Marten and Roadrunner of failing to verify that each vehicle they hire or dispatch in California is in compliance with CARB regulations. The fine for failing to verify is up to $25,000 per day. Both Marten and Roadrunner entered into settlement agreements, Marten for $100,000 and Roadrunner for $52,250.
Shippers, brokers, and freight forwarders are not required to inspect equipment to ensure compliance, but must show that they conducted due diligence to ensure compliance. Due diligence might include (1) requiring motor carriers to provide evidence that they registered their reefers in the Air Resources Board Equipment Registration (ARBER) system, (2) sending letters to all carriers that operate within California, as well as to those that hire them (3PLs), spelling out requirements, and (3) strengthening contract language regarding CARB compliance.
Based on CARB’s aggressive enforcement and their reach beyond California and reefers, it is time for everyone to review their procedures before California reaches out to them.
If you have any questions regarding these regulations, contact a member of Benesch’s Transportation & Logistics Practice Group.
Martha J. Payne (Author) at mpayne@beneschlaw.com or 541.764.2859
John C. Gentile (Contributor) at jgentile@beneschlaw.com or 302.442.7071
Eric L. Zalud at ezalud@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4178
Marc S. Blubaugh at mblubaugh@beneschlaw.com or 614.223.9382
Stephanie S. Penninger at spenninger@beneschlaw.com or 312.212.4981
Jonathan Todd at jtodd@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4658
Latest News
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.