Traduction de «Rapport sur l'état des coûts d'entretien » (Français → Anglais) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 130 Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: With regard to rail safety in Canada: (a) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways were permitted to operate with a single operator; (b) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways had permission to leave trains unattended for limited periods of time on main lines with or without an idling locomotive(s); (c) for the period of 2006-2012, which railways had permission to leave trains unattended for limited periods of time on side lines with or without an idling locomotive(s); (d) with regard to the railways in (b) and (c), under what specific conditions could the trains be left unattended; (e) what legislative or regulatory framework governs local emergency preparedness plans i ...[+++]n the event of a rail accident; (f) with respect to the plans in (e), (i) who is responsible for creating and executing such plans, (ii) by whom are they audited, (iii) how often are they audited, (iv) against what criteria are they audited; (g) by whom and how often are municipalities through which freight trains pass provided with regular reports on (i) the state of local emergency preparedness in the event of a rail accident, (ii) the state and maintenance record of the railway lines within their borders, (iii) the materials, hazardous or not, that are transported through their jurisdiction; (h) if reports referred to in (g) are not provided, why not; (i) how many of the DOT-111 railway tank cars and the DOD-112 tank cars are in use in Canada, for each year since 2006; (j) for each year since 2006, how many rolling stock and track safety inspectors were employed at Transport Canada, broken down by (i) province of work, (ii) oversight responsibility; (k) for each year since 2006, how many rolling stock and track safety inspectors employed by Transport Canada were responsible for inspections in (i) the Greater Montreal Area, (ii) the municipality of Pointe-Claire (iii) the municipality of Beaconsfield, (iv) the municipality ...

To avoid disproportionate or excessive costs for any Member State and to safeguard the added value of Union action through this Regulation, when proposing the Union list and consequential measures, the Commission should take into consideration the implementation cost for Member States, the cost of inaction, the cost-effectiveness and the socio-economic aspects.

Where the Commission finds, within six months after receiving the annual assessment report of the national supervisory authority concerned, that the assessment report does not establish that the variation of actual costs against determined costs is actually the result of relevant events or circumstances set out in paragraph 2(a) and in line with the provision of paragraph 2(b), it shall decide in accordance with the procedure refer ...[+++]red to in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 that the Member State(s) concerned shall not be allowed to apply the provisions of paragraph 2 in respect to the variation of actual costs against determined costs, in part or in whole according to its findings.

Regarding priority action (c), the collection of additional data necessary for the provision of the road-safety related traffic information service requires initial investments (e.g. for sensors, CCTV, weather stations, 112 reports or user reports, private providers / floating car data) and will generate subsequent costs for maintenance, operation and replacement.

The objective of cost-effective or cost-optimal energy efficiency levels may, in certain circumstances, for example in the light of climatic differences, justify the setting by Member States of cost-effective or cost-optimal requirements for building elements that would in practice limit the installation of building products that comply with standards set by Union legislation, provided that such requirements do not constitute an unjustifiable market barrier.

The 65 page report also reveals the cost of the gun registry.