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
Back To Wright Line: NLRB Resets Standards for Workplace Misconduct
Employers have regained greater flexibility to address offensive or abusive employee conduct that occurs during union activity or other activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act. On September 23, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a significant decision in Lion Elastomers LLC, 375 NLRB No. 41, restoring the prior standard for evaluating discipline when employee misconduct occurs during protected concerted activity from General Motors LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127.
Can an Algorithm Commit a Tort? The Circuit Split Over Section 230
A growing circuit split is reshaping the scope of Section 230 immunity. While the Fourth and Ninth Circuits continue to view algorithmic recommendations as protected publisher conduct, the Third Circuit has taken a narrower approach, holding that certain algorithm-driven content recommendations may constitute a platform’s own conduct and therefore fall outside Section 230’s protections.
Key Considerations for Businesses facing Defamation Issues: Strategies for Protecting Your Reputation and Brand
Defamation risk for businesses has never been higher. Even five years ago, unfavorable press could be expected to fade from …
SDNY Bankruptcy Court Offers Further Direction on Default Interest and Fee Recovery
The SDNY Bankruptcy Court’s written decision in 1300 Desert Willow builds on the framework established in Mako, providing additional guidance on when a debtor can overcome the presumption that an oversecured creditor is entitled to post-petition default interest at the contractual rate.