ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.

ABF Freight System Inc., a less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier headquartered in Austin, TX and operating as a subsidiary of ArcBest Corporation under NAICS 484122, is defined in its recent compliance record by one central enforcement event: the multi-jurisdictional Clean Water Act consent decree entered 2023-03-20 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Civil No. 2:23-cv-02039-PKH. That decree resolves claims filed jointly by the United States, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the State of Maryland, and the State of Nevada [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf] [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/abf-freight-inc-clean-water-act-settlement-information-sheet]. EPA ECHO records as of 2026-05-10 show 96 federally tracked facilities, 10 quarters of noncompliance over the trailing 24 months, and a derived penalty of $11.77 million across that window [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

ArcBest's public environmental disclosures are organized around EPA SmartWay recognition, City Route Optimization, and equipment efficiency — themes developed across the 2023 Sustainability Report and the 2024 Impact Report [source: https://arcb.com/sites/default/files/ArcBest-2023-Sustainability_Report.pdf] [source: https://s203.q4cdn.com/716791110/files/doc_downloads/2025/2024-Impact-Report.pdf]. Greenhouse gas reduction and fleet modernization anchor both documents. The federal enforcement record runs on a different regulatory axis: stormwater discharges at freight service centers, a pathway distinct from the carbon and fuel-efficiency categories ArcBest reports publicly [source: https://arcb.com/investor-relations/environmental-sustainability]. ABF Freight files no standalone SEC reports. ArcBest Corporation's consolidated disclosures are the only public-company reference available for the operating subsidiary [source: https://arcb.com/investor-relations/environmental-sustainability].

EPA ECHO data as of 2026-05-10 places ABF Freight at 96 federally tracked facilities, with zero major permits currently flagged as active and a latest permit-related event recorded on 2024-12-18 [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The 24-month count of 10 quarters-with-noncompliance is concentrated in the period bracketing the March 2023 federal consent decree — the action that addressed Clean Water Act stormwater violations across multiple ABF service centers [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/abf-freight-inc-clean-water-act-settlement-information-sheet].

Three chronological phases structure the trailing 24 months. The first runs mid-2024 through late-2024, when ABF operated under active consent decree terms requiring facility-level compliance audits, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) upgrades, and structured reporting at covered terminals [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf]. Filed 2023-02-17 and entered 2023-03-20, the decree mandates injunctive measures binding ABF, its officers, and successors-in-interest, together with civil penalty payments to the United States and co-plaintiff states Louisiana, Maryland, and Nevada [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf]. The second phase, late-2024 through mid-2025, includes the 2024-12-18 permit event logged in ECHO — an entry that coincides with ArcBest's publication of its 2024 Impact Report on 2025-04-22 [source: https://s203.q4cdn.com/716791110/files/doc_downloads/2025/2024-Impact-Report.pdf].

The third phase, mid-2025 through the 2026-05-10 ECHO snapshot, sustains a quarterly noncompliance signal tied to the decree's extended reporting and audit obligations, which reach past the initial penalty payment [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf]. ECHO's $11.77 million 24-month penalty is a pro-rated allocation computed under the published exporter methodology: penalty_24mo = total_5yr × 24/60. Read it as a windowed share of the multi-year total, not as a single cash disbursement dated within the period [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. A separate Superfund record in the SEMS database lists ABF Freight System Inc. under Site ID 0600079, marking historical site involvement distinct from the active LTL terminal network [source: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/CurSites/calinfo.cfm?id=0600079].

The decree anchoring ABF's enforcement record bears the full caption United States, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, State of Maryland, and State of Nevada v. ABF Freight System, Inc., Civil No. 2:23-cv-02039-PKH. Filed 2023-02-17 and lodged 2023-03-20 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, it targets Clean Water Act stormwater violations at ABF's LTL freight terminals across multiple states [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf]. EPA's settlement information sheet identifies the statutory framework as CWA stormwater — specifically the NPDES Industrial Stormwater General Permit and analogous state permits — with allegations focused on inadequate stormwater management at freight service centers where parked tractors, trailers, and maintenance yards generate direct runoff exposure to surface water [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/abf-freight-inc-clean-water-act-settlement-information-sheet]. Trade press coverage at the time of lodging characterized the action as a civil penalty matter with injunctive relief [source: https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/stories/abf-freight-system-inc-to-pay-civil-penalties-for-clean-water-act-non-compliance,3841].

The consent decree runs 89 pages. Sections address jurisdiction and venue, applicability, calculation of time, and injunctive obligations binding ABF, its officers, and successors-in-interest [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf]. Louisiana, Maryland, and Nevada joined as co-plaintiffs because covered ABF terminals sit within their respective NPDES-delegated authority areas; each state adds a state-law cause of action joined to the federal CWA count [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf]. ECHO's 24-month figure of $11,770,000 represents the decree's five-year, multi-jurisdictional penalty total pro-rated into the window under the published exporter methodology [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

No separate Clean Air Act or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enforcement orders against ABF Freight System Inc. appear in the court records or EPA enforcement database for the 24-month period. EPA's enforcement page for ABF identifies the matter strictly as a Clean Water Act settlement [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/abf-freight-inc-clean-water-act-settlement-information-sheet]. The Superfund listing under Site ID 0600079 is a historical SEMS record — legacy involvement only — not an active enforcement action from 2024 through 2026 [source: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/CurSites/calinfo.cfm?id=0600079].

The EPA ECHO snapshot identifies 96 ABF Freight facilities by registry ID but does not, in the available extract, attach state-level addresses or facility names to each identifier. Five registry IDs head the population — 110055234606, 110005086049, 110070145312, 110071932768, and 110072061103 — anchoring the LTL terminal set covered by the consent decree. Louisiana, Maryland, and Nevada appear as co-plaintiff states because those jurisdictions carry the deepest documented enforcement exposure within the 96-facility network [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip] [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf].

Louisiana-located terminals form the operational foundation for the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's co-plaintiff status. Facilities within the Louisiana portion of the 96-facility ECHO set carry documented enforcement exposure under both federal CWA authority and Louisiana state water-quality law [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf].

Maryland service centers supply the regulatory basis for the State of Maryland's co-plaintiff role. Maryland operates a delegated NPDES program, and the decree's injunctive provisions bind ABF's Maryland operations through state-permit terms incorporated by reference into the federal agreement [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf].

Nevada rounds out the co-plaintiff triad. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection authority provides the state-law cause of action joined to the federal CWA count against ABF's Nevada service center operations [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf]. ECHO's environmental justice index average across the 96-facility set reads 0.0 in the snapshot — an artifact of an unpopulated EJ-screen rollup field in the exporter, not an affirmative measured finding of zero EJ exposure [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

A fifth facility-level data point sits entirely outside the active LTL terminal portfolio. EPA's Superfund Enterprise Management System lists ABF Freight System Inc. under Site ID 0600079; the SEMS profile is the authoritative locator for that legacy site and governs historical contamination separate from current operations [source: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/CurSites/calinfo.cfm?id=0600079].

The top_pollutants array in the ECHO snapshot is empty for ABF Freight. That absence is consistent with a Clean Water Act stormwater enforcement profile: regulated discharges are characterized by parameters such as total suspended solids, oil and grease, and pH — physical and conventional pollutants governed under NPDES general permit terms rather than priority pollutants tracked by the Toxic Release Inventory [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. EPA's settlement page frames the applicable framework as the CWA NPDES stormwater program, which governs runoff from industrial activity at freight terminals where parked tractors, trailers, and maintenance areas create the exposure pathway to surface water [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/abf-freight-inc-clean-water-act-settlement-information-sheet].

Stormwater runoff from LTL trucking terminals is the primary pollutant-context category. The exposure pathway runs from impervious yard surfaces through municipal storm sewers to receiving waters — the precise pathway EPA cites as the regulatory basis for the ABF consent decree [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf]. Communities downstream of covered terminals are the EJ-relevant population, though the ECHO EJ-index average reads 0.0 because the exporter field is unpopulated rather than measured [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

The second pollutant category is diesel-engine emissions from the LTL fleet itself. ArcBest's 2024 Impact Report frames this as a greenhouse gas and air-quality issue, addressed through equipment upgrades and route optimization [source: https://s203.q4cdn.com/716791110/files/doc_downloads/2025/2024-Impact-Report.pdf]. The third category is legacy site contamination — soil and groundwater — governed by the Superfund SEMS profile for ABF Freight System Inc. under Site ID 0600079 and distinct from the stormwater issues at active terminals [source: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/CurSites/calinfo.cfm?id=0600079].

Within NAICS 484122 (general freight trucking, long-distance, LTL), ECHO ranks TForce Freight Inc. as the highest-penalty peer at $16,691,520 across 37 facilities with 77 quarters-with-noncompliance, while ABF Freight System Inc. records $11,770,000 across 96 facilities with 10 quarters-with-noncompliance over the same 24-month window [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Normalized per facility, ABF's derived 24-month penalty is approximately $122,604 versus approximately $451,122 at TForce Freight — a 3.7-to-1 ratio — while ABF's quarterly noncompliance rate per facility runs roughly an order of magnitude below TForce's [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The primary driver of ABF's absolute penalty figure is the 2023 multi-jurisdictional Clean Water Act consent decree, pro-rated into the 24-month window under the published exporter methodology [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/abf-cd.pdf].

ABF Freight System Inc. is privately held as an ArcBest Corporation subsidiary and files no standalone 10-K or 10-Q reports; the research bundle returned no SEC filings for ABF Freight System Inc. itself [source: https://arcb.com/investor-relations/environmental-sustainability]. ArcBest's published environmental sustainability materials describe forward-looking commitments around equipment efficiency, route optimization, and emissions reporting. ArcBest's 2024 Impact Report includes a Forward-Looking Statement section that flags inherent uncertainty in those projections [source: https://s203.q4cdn.com/716791110/files/doc_downloads/2025/2024-Impact-Report.pdf]. Readers seeking SEC-disclosed forward-looking environmental risk language for the LTL operating segment should consult ArcBest Corporation's filings as the parent issuer; no directly applicable Item 1A risk-factor text exists for ABF Freight System Inc. [source: https://arcb.com/investor-relations/environmental-sustainability].