Conduct of ARTC. (a) In formulating its Indicative Access Charges, ARTC will not differentiate between access holders in circumstances where the characteristics of the Indicative Services are alike.
(b) In determining whether the characteristics of two Indicative Services are alike ARTC may have regard to matters including location, duration and quality of the Train Path, nature of Train operating on the Train Path, characteristics of the Indicative Service, longevity of access and impact on Coal Chain Capacity.
(c) Without limiting clause 8.4(a), if:
(i) ARTC sells a train path for an Indicative Service to a third party (“Third Party Train Path”); and
(ii) the Access Holder considers, acting reasonably, that the Third Party Train Path is a like train path when compared to a Train Path for an Indicative Service purchased by it under this agreement (“Like Train Path”); and
(iii) the Access Holder has evidence to suggest that the Third Party Train Path has been sold by ARTC for a price less than that charged by ARTC to the Access Holder for the Like Train Path, then the Access Holder may make a written submission to ARTC claiming that the Indicative Access Charges payable by it under this agreement for the Like Train Path should be reduced to that charged by ARTC for the Third Party Train Path, such submission detailing at least the following:
(iv) the Indicative Access Charges payable by it for the Like Train Path;
(v) why the Like Train Path and the Third Party Train Path are to be considered like train paths in the context of clause 8.4(a);
(vi) the Indicative Access Charges that the Access Holder asserts ARTC is charging the third party for the Third Party Train Path.
Conduct of ARTC. Not used
Conduct of ARTC. Without limiting clause 8.4(a), if:
Conduct of ARTC a) ARTC will use all reasonable endeavours to submit an Access Undertaking in respect of the Network by [ ].
