LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS, AND OTHER EVENTS	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS, AND OTHER EVENTS
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS, AND OTHER EVENTS	NOTE L — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS, AND OTHER EVENTS The Company is involved in various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company maintains liability insurance against certain risks arising out of the normal course of its business, subject to certain self-insured retention limits. The Company routinely establishes and reviews the adequacy of reserves for estimated legal, environmental, and self-insurance exposures. While management believes that amounts accrued in the consolidated financial statements are adequate, estimates of these liabilities may change as circumstances develop. Considering amounts recorded, routine legal matters are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows; however, the Company is currently involved in certain legal proceedings, as further described below, for which the outcome and the related financial impact cannot be determined at this time. Legal Proceedings *National Master Freight Agreement* On November 1, 2010, ABF Freight System, Inc. filed a grievance with the National Grievance Committee, consisting of union and employer representatives established by the NMFA for resolving national contract disputes, against the following parties: the IBT; the Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee; Trucking Management, Inc. (“TMI”); every Teamster Local Union that is party to the NMFA; and YRC Inc., New Penn Motor Express, Inc., and USF Holland, Inc. (collectively “YRC”). A lawsuit was simultaneously filed in the United States District Court for the Western Division of Arkansas (the “Trial Court”) against the parties previously named and Teamster Local Unions 373 and 878 individually and as representatives of a class of Teamsters Local Unions that are parties to the NMFA. The lawsuit seeks appointment of a third-party neutral tribunal to rule on the grievance in place of the National Grievance Committee or, alternatively, for the Trial Court to rule on the lawsuit. The grievance and lawsuit assert that ABF Freight System, Inc. is an equal signatory to the NMFA which, as a national collective bargaining agreement, is designed to establish a single national standard for wages and other employment terms for all employers who are parties to the agreement. However, ABF Freight System, Inc. has not been granted the same wage and benefit concessions under the NMFA as YRC since 2009. The grievance filed by ABF Freight System, Inc. is a claim that the IBT and the other named parties have violated the NMFA. The grievance and lawsuit seek to declare the amendments made to the NMFA on YRC’s behalf null and void. The grievance and lawsuit also seek payment for damages associated with the amendments on YRC’s behalf. On December 20, 2010, the Trial Court granted motions filed by the IBT, the Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee, Teamsters Local Unions 373 and 878, and, separately, by YRC to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On January 18, 2011, ABF Freight System, Inc. filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (St. Louis) (the “Court of Appeals”). On April 12, 2011, the Court of Appeals held a hearing regarding the dismissal of the lawsuit and oral arguments were presented on behalf of ABF Freight System, Inc. On July 6, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s decision and remanded the case to the Trial Court for further proceedings. On October 12, 2011, ABF Freight System, Inc. filed an amended complaint. On November 11, 2011, the IBT, TMI, and YRC filed motions to dismiss this amended complaint and on December 9, 2011, ABF Freight System, Inc. filed a response to the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On January 16, 2012, the IBT, TMI, and YRC filed reply briefs to the response filed by ABF Freight System, Inc. On January 23, 2012, the IBT filed a request for oral arguments, which was supported by the other parties to the lawsuit. On August 1, 2012, the Trial Court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. ABF Freight System, Inc. appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals on August 30, 2012, and oral arguments were heard by the Court of Appeals on April 10, 2013. Environmental Matters The Company’s subsidiaries store fuel for use in tractors and trucks in 67 underground tanks located in 22 states. Maintenance of such tanks is regulated at the federal and, in most cases, state levels. The Company believes it is in substantial compliance with all such regulations. The Company’s underground storage tanks are required to have leak detection systems. The Company is not aware of any leaks from such tanks that could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company has received notices from the Environmental Protection Agency and others that it has been identified as a potentially responsible party under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, or other federal or state environmental statutes, at several hazardous waste sites. After investigating the Company’s or its subsidiaries’ involvement in waste disposal or waste generation at such sites, the Company has either agreed to de minimis settlements or determined that its obligations, other than those specifically accrued with respect to such sites, would involve immaterial monetary liability, although there can be no assurances in this regard. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company’s reserve, which was reported in accrued expenses, for estimated environmental cleanup costs of properties currently or previously operated by the Company totaled $0.9 million. Amounts accrued reflect management’s best estimate of the future undiscounted exposure related to identified properties based on current environmental regulations, management’s experience with similar environmental matters, and testing performed at certain sites.

NOTE L — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS, AND OTHER EVENTS

The Company is involved in various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company maintains liability insurance against certain risks arising out of the normal course of its business, subject to certain self-insured retention limits. The Company routinely establishes and reviews the adequacy of reserves for estimated legal, environmental, and self-insurance exposures. While management believes that amounts accrued in the consolidated financial statements are adequate, estimates of these liabilities may change as circumstances develop. Considering amounts recorded, routine legal matters are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows; however, the Company is currently involved in certain legal proceedings, as further described below, for which the outcome and the related financial impact cannot be determined at this time.

Legal Proceedings

National Master Freight Agreement

On November 1, 2010, ABF Freight System, Inc. filed a grievance with the National Grievance Committee, consisting of union and employer representatives established by the NMFA for resolving national contract disputes, against the following parties: the IBT; the Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee; Trucking Management, Inc. (“TMI”); every Teamster Local Union that is party to the NMFA; and YRC Inc., New Penn Motor Express, Inc., and USF Holland, Inc. (collectively “YRC”). A lawsuit was simultaneously filed in the United States District Court for the Western Division of Arkansas (the “Trial Court”) against the parties previously named and Teamster Local Unions 373 and 878 individually and as representatives of a class of Teamsters Local Unions that are parties to the NMFA. The lawsuit seeks appointment of a third-party neutral tribunal to rule on the grievance in place of the National Grievance Committee or, alternatively, for the Trial Court to rule on the lawsuit.

The grievance and lawsuit assert that ABF Freight System, Inc. is an equal signatory to the NMFA which, as a national collective bargaining agreement, is designed to establish a single national standard for wages and other employment terms for all employers who are parties to the agreement. However, ABF Freight System, Inc. has not been granted the same wage and benefit concessions under the NMFA as YRC since 2009. The grievance filed by ABF Freight System, Inc. is a claim that the IBT and the other named parties have violated the NMFA. The grievance and lawsuit seek to declare the amendments made to the NMFA on YRC’s behalf null and void. The grievance and lawsuit also seek payment for damages associated with the amendments on YRC’s behalf.

On December 20, 2010, the Trial Court granted motions filed by the IBT, the Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee, Teamsters Local Unions 373 and 878, and, separately, by YRC to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On January 18, 2011, ABF Freight System, Inc. filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (St. Louis) (the “Court of Appeals”). On April 12, 2011, the Court of Appeals held a hearing regarding the dismissal of the lawsuit and oral arguments were presented on behalf of ABF Freight System, Inc. On July 6, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s decision and remanded the case to the Trial Court for further proceedings. On October 12, 2011, ABF Freight System, Inc. filed an amended complaint. On November 11, 2011, the IBT, TMI, and YRC filed motions to dismiss this amended complaint and on December 9, 2011, ABF Freight System, Inc. filed a response to the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On January 16, 2012, the IBT, TMI, and YRC filed reply briefs to the response filed by ABF Freight System, Inc. On January 23, 2012, the IBT filed a request for oral arguments, which was supported by the other parties to the lawsuit. On August 1, 2012, the Trial Court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. ABF Freight System, Inc. appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals on August 30, 2012, and oral arguments were heard by the Court of Appeals on April 10, 2013.

Environmental Matters

The Company’s subsidiaries store fuel for use in tractors and trucks in 67 underground tanks located in 22 states. Maintenance of such tanks is regulated at the federal and, in most cases, state levels. The Company believes it is in substantial compliance with all such regulations. The Company’s underground storage tanks are required to have leak detection systems. The Company is not aware of any leaks from such tanks that could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company has received notices from the Environmental Protection Agency and others that it has been identified as a potentially responsible party under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, or other federal or state environmental statutes, at several hazardous waste sites. After investigating the Company’s or its subsidiaries’ involvement in waste disposal or waste generation at such sites, the Company has either agreed to de minimis settlements or determined that its obligations, other than those specifically accrued with respect to such sites, would involve immaterial monetary liability, although there can be no assurances in this regard.

At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company’s reserve, which was reported in accrued expenses, for estimated environmental cleanup costs of properties currently or previously operated by the Company totaled $0.9 million. Amounts accrued reflect management’s best estimate of the future undiscounted exposure related to identified properties based on current environmental regulations, management’s experience with similar environmental matters, and testing performed at certain sites.