Traduction de «Système d'alignement de descente à deux fréquences » (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 pla ...[+++]ns in 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 ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 611 Ms. Kirsty Duncan: With respect to the government’s plans for resource development, as described in the section entitled “Responsible Resource Development” in Chapter 3.2 of Budget 2012: (a) what are all examples of federal environmental laws that are stronger than provincial laws and how will the proposed legislative changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) affect the assessment of environmental impacts of industrial projects that cross provincial borders; (b) what research, action ...[+++], or investment has the government undertaken to study impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) risk mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (c) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (d) will the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA give any consideration to (i) measuring negative impacts of development, (ii) managing negative impacts of development; (e) by what date will the government bring forth new “legislation to streamline the review process for major economic projects” (Budget 2012, p. 89); (f) what are the projected costs of changes to the CEAA for each province and territory; (g) what assessments of the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each province and territory have been conducted, (i) what were the dates of any such assessments, (ii) what wer ...

Until now, in its negotiations with the Americans, the Commission has put forward the scenario that the United States will not be able to jam one of the planned PRS signals because it will be overlaid on one of the future military GPS signals and it is not possible to selectively jam one of two signals overlaid on a single frequency band with the same modulation. As explained in point3.3 hereabove, the modulation used for the overlay would enable Galileo to transmit a much more "robust" and reliable signal. As a result, the United States would not be able to selectively jam Galileo PRS users. A political ...[+++]agreement on the cooperation necessary between the two radionavigation systems is required in preparation for a crisis or in the event of a crisis.

The system consists of conventional coded track circuits which operate at two carrier frequencies to deal with two train classes.

As far as the remaining spectrum goes, of the local multiple communications systems that have been allocated already, two of the remaining four frequency blocks are scheduled to go to auction in two years or so.

As the Community has adopted a new approach to radio frequencies, namely to take action within the framework of the ERC, the two proposals for Directives submitted by the Commission on the assignment of frequency bands for the introduction in Europe of the terrestrial flight telecommunications system (TFTS) and road transport telematic systems (RTT) have been withdrawn.