Modifications to UIIA Agreement

In accordance with Appendix I, Section V. of the UIIA, all participants were notified on May 12, 2008 of modifications to the following sections of the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement (UIIA) that were approved by the Intermodal Interchange Executive Committee (IIEC) at its meeting held on April 29, 2008.

Participants are provided with a 30-day period to review and submit comments on these modifications. All comments will need to be submitted in writing, via e-mail to debbie.sasko@intermodal.org by no later than June 10, 2008, to be considered. The proposed effective date of these revisions will not be before July 5, 2008.

Click here for a copy of the memo along with the proposed modifications to the UIIA.

---

December 1, 2007 — Expansion of Pilot Dispute Resolution Process to Northeastern US geographic region

At the IIEC meeting on November 9, 2007, the Intermodal Interchange Executive Committee (IIEC) approved the expansion of the current pilot Dispute Resolution Process that was being tested in California to now also be available to UIIA participants that have business operations in the Northeastern US. This would include the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Effective December 1, 2007, the pilot DRP process was implemented for use by UIIA participants servicing the Northeastern states listed above.

---

November 9, 2007 — Clarification of Section E.3.d of the UIIA

At the Intermodal Interchange Executive Committee (IIEC) meeting held on November 9, 2007, the Committee was advised of the numerous inquiries received from UIIA participants requesting clarification of the language in Section E.3.d of the UIIA as it relates to the specific documentation that is required when billing Motor Carriers for repairs. On December 4, 2007, in an effort to clear up any confusion, a memo was distributed to all UIIA participants on behalf of the IIEC, to clarify the language in this provision relating to documentation required when billing for repairs.

Please click here for a copy of the IIEC memo sent to all UIIA participants.

---

July 1, 2007 — Implementation of Pilot Dispute Resolution Process in California.

At the IIEC meeting in April 2007, the Intermodal Interchange Executive Committee (IIEC) approved a pilot Dispute Resolution Process for testing and evaluation for possible inclusion in the UIIA. The purpose of the program is to provide an alternative method for resolving issues involving per diem and/or maintenance and repair invoices after all dispute resolution processes under the UIIA/EP Addenda have been exhausted. Effective July 1, 2007, the pilot DRP process was implemented for use by UIIA participants with business operations in the state of California.

---

April 19-20, 2007 — Proposed Modifications to UIIA

At the Intermodal Interchange Executive Committee (IIEC) meeting held on April 19 & 20, 2007, the Committee approved modifications and/or addition of new language to Section B. Definitions, D.3 Equipment Use, E.2 Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Equipment and E.4 Tires of the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement (UIIA). These proposed changes have been provided to all UIIA participants for a thirty-day comment period. The deadline for comments is June 6, 2007. The proposed effective date of the revisions will not be before July 25, 2007.

Please click here for a copy of the memo along with the proposed modifications to the UIIA.

---

January 17, 2007 — Modifications to UIIA

As a result of the various changes in industry practices, the Intermodal Interchange Executive Committee (IIEC) had requested that IANA Counsel conduct a thorough review of the provisions of the basic UII Agreement to ascertain if modifications and/or clarifications were needed. At the IIEC meeting held on January 17, 2007, the Committee reviewed the results of Counsel’s analysis of the basic UII Agreement and approved specific modifications/clarifications to the UIIA. In addition, the Committee also approved modifications and/or new language to Sections B.6, B.7, D.2 and E.3 of the UIIA that addresses the use of automated gate inspection systems. Click here for full outline of modifications/clarifications adopted by IIEC. These changes became effective on April 11, 2007.

---

August 9, 2006 — Modifications to UIIA

At a meeting held on August 9, 2006, the Intermodal Interchange Executive Committee (IIEC) approved modifications to Appendix I, Administrative Procedures of the UIIA. The revisions included a modification to the language under Section II, Review Procedures for New or Revised Providers Addenda, Item II.C.1 and Item II.C.2. In addition a new Section VIII Non-Compliance of UIIA was added that set forth procedures in the event a participant does not comply with the terms and conditions of the UIIA.

These revisions became effective November 1, 2006.

---

February 1, 2006  — Modifications to UIIA

At a meeting of the IIEC held on February 1, 2006, members unanimously voted to make the following revisions to the UIIA for the purposes of clarifying the intent of each provision.

Section B., Definition of Terms — modifications to Item B.7 Facility Operator and Item B.15 Facility Operator were revised to clarify that Facility Operators must be signatories to the Agreement in order to be extended coverage under the UIIA.

An editorial correction was made to Section E.1 to change the “A” in the term “Agreement” that is contained in the first portion of this provision to lower case and also to add language stating that an Equipment Provider’s Addendum is not considered a separate bilateral agreement.

These revisions became effective February 24, 2006.

---

June 16, 2004 — Work Action of Independent Owner Operators in Long Beach/Oakland:

The IIEC was asked to interpret whether the West Coast work actions of independent owner operators in California that occurred in April/May 2004, falls under Section G.12 Force Majeure. The IIEC determined that the work action in California did not fall under Section G.12. (Date of Decision: June 16, 2004).

---

January 28, 2004 — New Orleans Work Stoppage Action:

The IIEC was asked to interpret whether the work action of independent contractors in New Orleans, Louisiana that occurred in April 2003, falls under Section G.12 Force Majeure. The IIEC determined that the work action in New Orleans did not fall under Section G.12. (Date of Decision: January 28, 2004)

---

January 28, 2004 — Interpretation of Section D.2.a and D.2.b of the UIIA:

The IIEC was requested to interpret Section D.2.a and D.2.b of the UIIA to determine if it is a requirement of the Agreement to include the driver's name on an electronic equivalent to the Equipment Interchange Receipt (EIR).

The IIEC reviewed the language currently contained in Section D.2, Equipment Interchange Receipts, which stipulates that, "The receipt shall be considered executed upon signature by both Parties or complete identification of both parties". It was noted that the term "Parties" is defined in the Agreement as the Provider, Motor Carrier and/or Facility Operator who are signatories to the Agreement. Therefore, it could be interpreted that the information necessary to identify each party on the EIR (or electronic equivalent) would be the names of the Provider and the Motor Carrier, since they are the signatories to the Agreement, and not the individual company driver.

The committee concluded that, because the UIIA does not specifically address the types of information that should be included on the EIR it would not be mandatory for the driver's name be included on the documentation. The IIEC does however, recognize the importance of this issue, and has requested that its ocean and rail members research the type of information that is currently being documented on the EIR at the various rail ramps and marine terminals and report their findings back to the group for further review and discussion at the next scheduled meeting.  (Date of Decision: January 28, 2004)

---

October 1, 2003 — Interpretation of Section D.3.d and D.3.d(1) of the UIIA:

The IIEC was asked to interpret Section D.3.d and D.3.d(1) of the UIIA as it relates to motor carrier responsibility for damage to those items classified as wear and tear. Section D.3.d and D.3.d(1) state the following:

Section D.3.d - Motor Carrier will return Equipment to the Provider in the same condition, reasonable Wear and Tear excepted.

Section D.3.d(1) - In any disputes arising in connection with classification of Wear and Tear, the Association of American Railroads TOFC/COFC Interchange Rules, Sections B, G, and F, shall be the controlling document.

The IIEC maintained that the AAR TOFC/COFC Interchange Rules stipulates that damage to items classified as wear and tear are the responsibility of the Equipment Provider and not the Motor Carrier. (Date of Decision: October 1, 2003)