Common use of Conduct of ARTC Clause in Contracts

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. (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. (d) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Access Holder’s Indicative Access Charges have been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (e) In the event that the Access Holder does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 8.4(d)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Access Holder may give ARTC a notice under clause 14 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 14.

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 Xxxxxx 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. (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 Xxxxxx 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. (a) In formulating its Indicative Access Charges, ARTC will not differentiate between access holders operators in circumstances where where: (i) the characteristics of the Indicative Services are alike.; and (bii) the operators are operating within the same end market. In determining whether the characteristics of two Indicative Services are alike ARTC may have regard to matters including but without limitation location, duration and quality of the Train Path, nature of Train operating on the Train Pathconsist, characteristics of the Indicative Service, longevity of access access, arrival and impact on Coal Chain Capacitydeparture times of the day and week. (cb) Without limiting clause 8.4(aclauses 5.6(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 Operator 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 Agreement (“Like Train Path”); and (iii) the Access Holder Operator 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 Operator for the Like Train Path, then the Access Holder Operator may make a written submission to ARTC claiming that the Indicative Access Charges payable by it under this agreement 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 Train Paths in the context of clause 8.4(a5.6(b); (vi) the Indicative Access Charges that the Access Holder Operator asserts ARTC is charging the third party for the Third Party Train Path. (c) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under clause 5.6(c), notify the Operator whether: (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Operator’s Indicative Access Charges have been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (d) In the event that the Operator does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 5.6(c)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Operator may give ARTC a notice under clause 17 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 17.

Conduct of ARTC. (a) In formulating its Indicative Access Charges, ARTC will not differentiate between access holders operators in circumstances where where: (i) the characteristics of the Indicative Services are alike.; and (bii) the operators are operating within the same end market. In determining whether the characteristics of two Indicative Services are alike ARTC may have regard to matters including but without limitation the applicable non-price terms, location, duration and quality of the Train Path, nature of Train operating on the Train Pathconsist, characteristics of the Indicative Service, longevity of access access, arrival and impact on Coal Chain Capacitydeparture times of the day and week. (cb) Without limiting clause 8.4(a5.6(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 Operator considers, acting reasonablyreasonably having regard to the matters in clause 5.6(a), 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 Agreement (“Like Train Path”); and (iii) the Access Holder Operator 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 Operator for the Like Train Path, then the Access Holder Operator may make a written submission to ARTC claiming that the Indicative Access Charges payable by it under this agreement 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 Like Train Paths in the context of clause 8.4(a5.6(a); (vi) the Indicative Access Charges that the Access Holder Operator asserts ARTC is charging the third party for the Third Party Train Path. (c) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under clause 5.6(b), notify the Operator whether: (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Operator’s Indicative Access Charges have been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (d) In the event that the Operator does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 5.6(c)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Operator may give ARTC a notice under clause 17 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 17.

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 Xxxxxx 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. (d) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Access Xxxxxx’s Indicative Access Charges have been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (e) In the event that the Access Holder does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 8.4(d)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Access Holder may give ARTC a notice under clause 14 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 14.

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. (a) In formulating its Indicative Access Charges, ARTC will not differentiate between access holders operators in circumstances where where: (i) the characteristics of the Indicative Services are alike.; and (bii) the operators are operating within the same end market. In determining whether the characteristics of two Indicative Services are alike ARTC may have regard to matters including but without limitation location, duration and quality of the Train Path, nature of Train operating on the Train Pathconsist, characteristics of the Indicative Service, longevity of access access, arrival and impact on Coal Chain Capacitydeparture times of the day and week. (cb) Without limiting clause 8.4(aclauses 5.6(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 Operator 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 Agreement (“Like Train Path”); and (iii) the Access Holder Operator 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 Operator for the Like Train Path, then the Access Holder Operator may make a written submission to ARTC claiming that the Indicative Access Charges payable by it under this agreement 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 Like Train Paths in the context of clause 8.4(a5.6(a); (vi) the Indicative Access Charges that the Access Holder Operator asserts ARTC is charging the third party for the Third Party Train Path. (c) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under clause 5.6(b), notify the Operator whether: (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Operator’s Indicative Access Charges have been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (d) In the event that the Operator does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 5.6(c)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Operator may give ARTC a notice under clause 17 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 17.

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. (d) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under clause 8.4(c), notify the Access Holder whether: (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Access Holder’s Indicative Access Charges have been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (e) In the event that the Access Holder does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 8.4(d)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Access Holder may give ARTC a notice under clause 14 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 14.

Conduct of ARTC. (a) In formulating its Indicative Access Charges, ARTC will not differentiate between access holders in circumstances where where: (i) the characteristics of the Indicative Services are alike.; and (bii) the access holders are operating within the same end market. 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. (cb) 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 Xxxxxx 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 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. (c) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Access Xxxxxx’s Indicative Access Charges have been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (d) In the event that the Access Holder does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 8.4(c)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Access Holder may give ARTC a notice under clause 14 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 14.

Conduct of ARTC. (a) In formulating its Indicative Access proposed Charges, ARTC will not differentiate between access holders operators in circumstances where where: (i) the characteristics of the Indicative Services services are alike.; and (bii) the operators are operating within the same end market. In determining whether the characteristics of two Indicative Services services are alike ARTC may have regard to matters including but without limitation the applicable non-price terms, location, duration and quality of the Train Path, nature of Train operating on the Train Pathconsist, characteristics of the Indicative Serviceservice, longevity of access access, arrival and impact on Coal Chain Capacitydeparture times of the day and week. (cb) Without limiting clause 8.4(a5.6(a), if: (i) ARTC sells a train path Train Path for an Indicative a Service to a third party (“Third Party Train Path”); and (ii) the Access Holder Operator considers, acting reasonablyreasonably having regard to the matters in clause 5.6(a), that the Third Party Train Path is a like train path Train Path when compared to a Train Path for an Indicative a Service purchased by it under this agreement Agreement (“Like Train Path”); and (iii) the Access Holder Operator 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 Operator for the Like Train Path, then the Access Holder Operator may make a written submission to ARTC claiming that the Indicative Access Charges Charge payable by it under this agreement 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 Charge 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 Like Train Paths in the context of clause 8.4(a5.6(a);; and (vi) the Indicative Access Charges Charge that the Access Holder Operator asserts ARTC is charging the third party for the Third Party Train Path. (c) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under clause 5.6(b), notify the Operator whether: (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Operator’s Charge has been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (d) In the event that the Operator does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 5.6(c)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Operator may give ARTC a notice under clause 17 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 17.

Conduct of ARTC. (a) In formulating its Indicative Access Charges, ARTC will not differentiate between access holders in circumstances where where: the characteristics of the Indicative Services are alike. (i) the characteristics of the Indicative Services are alike; and (ii) the access holders are operating within the same end market. (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) (b) 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 Xxxxxx 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 Like Train Pathslike 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. (d) (c) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under clause 8.4(bc), notify the Access Holder whether: (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Access Xxxxxx’s Indicative Access Charges have been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (e) (d) In the event that the Access Holder does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 8.4(cd)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Access Holder may give ARTC a notice under clause 14 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 14.

Conduct of ARTC. ‌ (a) In formulating its Indicative Access Charges, ARTC will not differentiate between access holders in circumstances where where: (i) the characteristics of the Indicative Services are alike.; and (bii) the access holders are operating within the same end market. 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. (cb) 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 Xxxxxx 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 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. (c) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under clause 8.4(b), notify the Access Holder whether: (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Access Xxxxxx’s Indicative Access Charges have been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (d) In the event that the Access Holder does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 8.4(c)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Access Holder may give ARTC a notice under clause 14 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 14.

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 Xxxxxx 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. (d) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under clause 8.4(c), notify the Access Holder whether: (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Access Xxxxxx’s Indicative Access Charges have been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (e) In the event that the Access Holder does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 8.4(d)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Access Holder may give ARTC a notice under clause 14 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 14.

Conduct of ARTC. (a) In formulating its Indicative Access proposed Charges, ARTC will not differentiate between access holders operators in circumstances where where: (i) the characteristics of the Indicative Services are alike.; and (bii) the operators are operating within the same end market. In determining whether the characteristics of two Indicative Services are alike ARTC may have regard to matters including but without limitation the applicable non-price terms, location, duration and quality of the Train Path, nature of Train operating on the Train Pathconsist, characteristics of the Indicative Service, longevity of access access, arrival and impact on Coal Chain Capacitydeparture times of the day and week. (cb) Without limiting clause 8.4(a5.6(a), if: (i) ARTC sells a train path Train Path for an Indicative a Service to a third party (“Third Party Train Path”); and (ii) the Access Holder Operator considers, acting reasonablyreasonably having regard to the matters in clause 5.6(a), that the Third Party Train Path is a like train path Train Path when compared to a Train Path for an Indicative a Service purchased by it under this agreement Agreement (“Like Train Path”); and (iii) the Access Holder Operator 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 Operator for the Like Train Path, then the Access Holder Operator may make a written submission to ARTC claiming that the Indicative Access Charges Charge payable by it under this agreement 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 Charge 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 Like Train Paths in the context of clause 8.4(a5.6(a); (vi) the Indicative Access Charges Charge that the Access Holder Operator asserts ARTC is charging the third party for the Third Party Train Path. (c) ARTC will, within 30 days of receipt of a written submission under clause 5.6(b), notify the Operator whether: (i) it agrees with the submission and that the Operator’s Charge has been reduced accordingly; or (ii) it disagrees with the submission and the reasons why. (d) In the event that the Operator does not agree with ARTC’s decision under clause 5.6(c)(ii) and the reasons for it, the Operator may give ARTC a notice under clause 17 whereupon the dispute will be resolved in accordance with clause 17.