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
Judicial Green Light: Court Upholds NLRB’s Cemex Decision
On April 21st, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC., reinforcing a significant shift in federal labor law governing union recognition and employer conduct during organizing campaigns.
The LEAD Model—Kidney Care’s Value-Based Care Journey LEADs Here
The new LEAD Model, launching in 2027, is CMS’s next-generation value-based care framework for kidney care, integrating CKD and ESRD patients into standard ACOs with a 10-year benchmark period, new payment options and greater flexibility for nephrology-led organizations.
DOL Proposes Universal Guidance Meant to Simplify Joint Employer Analysis
On April 22, 2026, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division proposed a new rule to clarify joint employer status and the related analysis under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Protection Act (“MSAPA”).
Only the Strong Survive: Easy Pitfalls to Avoid as a Defamation Plaintiff
Filing a defamation lawsuit is one thing. Surviving the inevitable motion to dismiss is another. A recent case out of the Eastern District of North Carolina, McKnight v. FOXY/WFXC/K 107.1/104.3 Radio Station, et al., Civil Action No. 5:26-cv-102, provides a useful case study in the kinds of missteps that can doom a defamation complaint before it ever reaches discovery.