4.6 CONGESTED INFRASTRUCTURE [EX 4.4.5

c) the flexibility margins shown above are reduced to ± 10 in the commuter time slots.

The flexibility margins used in the harmonisation phase shall take into due account the frequency needs and the correspondences between services. 2. Without prejudice to the observance of the principles referred to in paragraph 1 above, the IM, during the harmonisation of two or more conflicting paths, shall satisfy the said paths by applying the criteria referred to in paragraph 4.6.2. 3. The RU may request the TRA to re-examine the decisions adopted by the IM.

4.5.5 Path coordination process [ex 4.4.4]

If it proves impossible to define a draft timetable according to paragraph 4.5.4.1, the IM shall undertake a coordination procedure in order to reconcile any conflicting requests, providing for consultations with the requesting RUs and involving, in the case of paths included in public contracts, the relevant and competent local authorities as well. During this consultation stage, the IM shall transmit the following information to the parties concerned:  the train paths requested by all the RUs on the same routes;  the train paths allocated in a preliminary capacity to all the RUs on the same routes;  the alternative train paths proposed in respect of the relevant routes;  a detailed description of the criteria adopted in the capacity allocation process.

This information is provided by ensuring the commercial confidentiality of the information, unless the parties concerned have given their consent. The IM, at the delivery of the draft timetable shall also notify, alongside the harmonised paths, the alternative proposals concerned by the coordination procedure. The RUs may then present motivated observations and proposals within 30 days, concomitantly with the observations filed with respect to the draft timetable. Lacking any such observations the proposals shall be deemed to have been accepted. If observations are submitted the IM shall jointly assess the parties concerned ensuring transparency, fairness and non-discrimination in the final determination of the path offer. The coordination procedure shall be wrapped up by 30 September at the latest. If a conflict arises between the path requests not covered by a Framework Agreement and the path requests submitted consistently with the allocated framework capacity, the IM shall apply the path allocation procedure provided in this section, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 2016/545/EU, article 10, paragraph 5.

4.5.5.1 Outcome of requests [ex 4.4.6]

On completion of the allocation process, the IM shall notify the detailed train paths to the RU. The formal allocation thereof shall occur on the conclusion of the Contract. Any requests rejected due to insufficient capacity shall be reviewed, in agreement with the Applicant, on the next timetable adjustment relating to the routes concerned. Exceptions to this rule are the operating management requests, for which the decision is final.

4.6 CONGESTED INFRASTRUCTURE [EX 4.4.5]

4.6.1 Statement of congestion [ex 4.4.5.1]

If the path changes proposed by the IM, requested for the services referred to in paragraph 4.5.4.1 (1)(a) and (b), in connection with the coordination procedure differ from the original request made by the RUs by an amount equal to or in excess of ± 16 minutes and at least one of the RUs concerned refuses the proposal made by the IM, the latter shall declare the element of the infrastructure concerned to be saturated and notify the TRA and the Undertakings concerned to this effect. If the path changes proposed by the IM, requested for the services referred to in paragraph 4.5.4.1 (1)(c), in connection with the coordination procedure differ from the original request made by the RUs by an amount equal to or in excess of ± 31 minutes and at least one of the RUs concerned refuses the proposal made by the IM, the latter

shall declare the element of the infrastructure concerned to be saturated and notify the TRA and the Undertakings concerned to this effect.. If the IM declares the element of infrastructure concerned to be congested - also as a result of the facts illustrated in par. 2.7, and until the organisational and/or infrastructure actions aimed at remedying the congestion are implemented - it shall allocate the available paths according to the priority criteria set out in paragraph 4.6.2 below, taking account also of the designation of the infrastructure, if any, for certain types of traffic.

4.6.2 Train path priority criteria [ex 4.4.5.2]

1. In the allocation of train paths relating to requests for a timetable period and/or for intermediate adjustment, the IM, without prejudice to the paths requested in accordance with an executed Framework Agreement, shall assign priority to:  international train services;  transport services the quality and quantity of which is sufficient to meet the mobility needs of the general public, governed by specific service agreements to be entered into between RU and the central or regional governments; 2. Any incompatibility between train paths with equal priority, in accordance with the previous paragraph 1, shall be solved by giving priority to the service aimed at the traffic characteristic of the time slot of interest, as follows:  the transport services qualitatively and quantitatively sufficient to meet the mobility needs of the general public, governed by specific service agreements to be entered into between RU and the central or regional governments shall be assigned priority status, with respect to the other services referred to in paragraph 1, in the commuter time slots, i.e. between 6.00-9.00 and 17.00-20.00;  the high-speed train services (entirely or partially) using dedicated infrastructures – built anew or upgraded, and the international passenger services – shall be given priority status along the entire route vis-à-vis the other services referred to in paragraph 1 between 7.00-22.00, excepting the time slots referred to in the preceding sub-paragraph; 3. In the case of incompatibilities that cannot be solved based on the rules set out above, the capacity shall be allocated prioritarily to the services in the order as follows:  services provided under interval-service timetables, even if provided by more than one RU under specific commercial agreements, documented to the IM on the submission of the path request and, in any case, concluded in accordance with the principles set out in Article 101 of the Treaty and of the applicable national legislation;  services that most utilise weekly uniform paths;  services using paths that segment to a lesser extent the line, individually developing the most number of kilometres; and if it should still prove impossible to solve the conflict, according to the priority represented by the order of presentation of the requests. 4. In the apportionment of the capacity for requests during the applicable working timetable period the priority is always determined by the order of presentation of the requests.

5. However, the priority service, in the presence of other requests, cannot lead to the congestion of the infrastructure capacity, since priority is not an exclusive right. The maximum share of the available capacity that can be allocated - for each Section and time slot - to each type of priority service (Regional Passengers,

Medium/Long-Distance Passengers) is fixed at 60%. This maximum percentage does not apply to dedicated or specialised lines for certain types of traffic, as resulting from Annexes 4 and 7 to Chapter 3. 6. Any incompatibilities between path requests submitted by different Railway Undertakings for the same type of service shall be governed with the priority criteria referred to in sub-paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 above. As regards the Section of interest, the RU granted priority status cannot be allocated all the available paths in the day for the requested type of service, because priority is not an exclusive right: the maximum share of available paths that can be allocated to the RU granted priority status is fixed at 80%. This principle shall be applied also to the capacity allocation formalized under a framework agreement.