text:
The Toronto streetcar system is a network of nine streetcar routes in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, operated by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). It is the busiest light-rail system in North America. The network is concentrated primarily in Downtown Toronto and in proximity to the city's waterfront. Much of the streetcar route network dates from the 19th century. Most of Toronto's streetcar routes operate on street trackage shared with vehicular traffic, and streetcars stop on demand at frequent stops like buses.

Toronto's streetcars provide most of the downtown core's surface transit service. Four of the TTC's five most heavily used surface routes are streetcar routes. In , the system had a ridership of , or about  per weekday as of .

History

Pre-TTC history (1861–1921)

The main predecessors of the TTC were:
 Toronto Street Railway (1861–1891)
 Toronto Railway Company (1891–1921)
 Toronto Civic Railways (1911–1921)

In 1861, the City of Toronto issued a thirty-year transit franchise (Resolution 14, By-law 353) for a horse-drawn street railway, after the Williams Omnibus Bus Line had become heavily loaded. Alexander Easton's Toronto Street Railway (TSR) opened the first street railway line in Canada on September 11, 1861, operating from Yorkville Town Hall to the St. Lawrence Market. At the end of the TSR franchise, the City government ran the railway for eight months but ended up granting a new thirty-year franchise to the Toronto Railway Company (TRC) in 1891. The TRC was the first operator of horseless streetcars in Toronto. The first electric car ran on August 15, 1892, and the last horse car ran on August 31, 1894, to meet franchise requirements.

There came to be problems with interpretation of the franchise terms for the City. By 1912, the city limits had extended significantly, with the annexation of communities to the north (1912: North Toronto) and the east (1908: Town of East Toronto) and the west (1909: the City of West Toronto—The Junction). After many attempts to force the TRC to serve these areas, the City created its own street railway operation, the Toronto Civic Railways (TCR) to do so, and built several routes. Repeated court battles forced the TRC to build new cars, but they were of old design. When the TRC franchise ended in 1921, the Toronto Transportation Commission was created, combining the city-operated Toronto Civic Railways lines into its new network.

Early TTC history (1921–1945)
The TTC began in 1921 as solely a streetcar operation, with the bulk of the routes acquired from the private TRC and merged with the publicly operated Toronto Civic Railways. In 1923, the TTC took over the Lambton, Davenport and Weston routes of the Toronto Suburban Railway (TSR) and integrated them into the streetcar system.

In 1925, routes were operated on behalf of the Township of York (as Township of York Railway), but the TTC was contracted to operate them. One of these routes was the former TSR Weston route and the others were the TTC Oakwood and Rogers Road streetcar routes. The Weston streetcar route was replaced by electric trolley buses in 1965, while Rogers Road route was replaced by the 63 Ossington trolley bus route; ultimately diesel bus routes replaced the trolley buses in 1992.

In 1927, the TTC became the operator of three radial lines of the former Toronto and York Radial Railway. The TTC connected these lines to the streetcar system in order to share equipment and facilities, such as carhouses, but the radials had their own separate management within the TTC's Radial Department. The last TTC-operated radial (North Yonge Railways) closed in 1948.

Plans for abandonment (1945–1989)
After the Second World War, many cities across North America and Europe began to eliminate their streetcar systems in favour of buses. During the 1950s, the TTC continued to invest in streetcars and the TTC took advantage of other cities' streetcar removals by purchasing extra PCC cars from Cleveland, Birmingham, Kansas City, and Cincinnati.

In 1966, the TTC announced plans to eliminate all streetcar routes by 1980. Streetcars were considered out of date, and their elimination in almost all other cities made it hard to buy new vehicles and maintain the existing ones. Metro Toronto chair William Allen claimed in 1966 that "streetcars are as obsolete as the horse and buggy". Many streetcars were removed from service when Line 2 Bloor–Danforth opened in February 1966.

The plan to abolish the streetcar system was strongly opposed by many people in the city, and a group named "Streetcars for Toronto" was formed to work against the plan. The group was led by Professor Andrew Biemiller and transit advocate Steve Munro. It had the support of city councillors William Kilbourn and Paul Pickett, and urban advocate Jane Jacobs. Streetcars for Toronto presented the TTC board with a report that found retaining the streetcar fleet would, in the long run, be cheaper than converting to buses. This combined with a strong public preference for streetcars over buses changed the decision of the TTC board.

The busiest north–south and east–west routes were replaced respectively by the Yonge–University and the Bloor–Danforth subway lines, and the northernmost streetcar lines, including the North Yonge and Oakwood routes, were replaced by trolley buses (and later by diesel buses). Two lines that operated north of St. Clair Avenue were abandoned for other reasons. The Rogers Road route was abandoned to free up streetcars for expanded service on other routes. The Mount Pleasant route was removed because of complaints that streetcars slowed automobile traffic. Earlier, the TTC had contemplated abandonment because replacement by trolleybuses was cheaper than replacing the aging tracks.

However, the TTC maintained most of its existing network, purchasing new custom-designed Canadian Light Rail Vehicles (CLRV) and Articulated Light Rail Vehicles (ALRV), with the first CLRV entering service in 1979. It also continued to rebuild and maintain the existing fleet of PCC (Presidents' Conference Committee) streetcars until they were no longer roadworthy.

When Kipling station opened in 1980 as the new western terminus of Line 2 Bloor–Danforth, it had provision for a future streetcar or LRT platform opposite the bus platforms. However, there was no further development for a surface rail connection there.

In the early 1980s, a streetcar line was planned to connect Kennedy station to Scarborough Town Centre. However, as that line was being built, the Province of Ontario persuaded the TTC to switch to using a new technology called the Intermediate Capacity Transit System (now Bombardier Innovia Metro) by promising to pay for any cost overruns (which eventually amounted to over $100million). Thus, the Scarborough RT (now Line 3 Scarborough) was born, and streetcar service did not return to Scarborough, instead stopping at the boundary.

Late 20th-century expansion (1989–2000)

The TTC returned to building new streetcar routes in 1989. The first new line was route 604 Harbourfront, starting from Union station, travelling underneath Bay Street and rising to a dedicated centre median on Queen's Quay (along the edge of Lake Ontario) to the foot of Spadina Avenue. This route was lengthened northward along Spadina Avenue in 1997, continuing to travel in a dedicated right-of-way in the centre of the street, and ending in an underground terminal at Spadina station. At this time, the route was renamed 510 Spadina to fit with the numbering scheme of the other streetcar routes. This new streetcar service replaced the former route 77 Spadina bus and, since 1997, has provided the main north–south transit service through Toronto's Chinatown and the western boundary of University of Toronto's main campus. The tracks along Queen's Quay were extended to Bathurst Street in 2000 to connect to the existing Bathurst route, providing for a new 509 Harbourfront route from Union station to the refurbished Exhibition Loop at the Exhibition grounds, where the annual Canadian National Exhibition is held.

21st century (2001–present)
By 2003, two-thirds of the city's streetcar tracks were in poor condition as the older track was poorly built using unwelded rail attached to untreated wooden ties lying on loose gravel. The result was street trackage falling apart quickly requiring digging up everything after 10 to 15 years. Thus, the TTC started to rebuild tracks using a different technique. With the new technique, concrete is poured over compacted gravel, and the ties are placed in another bed of concrete, which is topped by more concrete to embed rail clips and rubber-encased rails. The resulting rail is more stable and quieter with less vibration. The new tracks are expected to last 25 years after which only the top concrete layer needs to be removed in order to replace worn rails.

Route 512 St. Clair was rebuilt to restore a separated right-of-way similar to that of the 510 on Spadina Avenue, to increase service reliability and was completed on June 30, 2010.

On December 19, 2010, 504 King streetcar service returned to Roncesvalles Avenue after the street was rebuilt to a new design, which provided a widened sidewalk "bumpout" at each stop to allow riders to board a streetcar directly from the curb. When no streetcar is present, cyclists may ride over the bumpout as it doubles as part of a bike lane.

On October 12, 2014, streetcar service resumed on 509 Harbourfront route after the street was rebuilt to a new design that replaced the eastbound auto lanes with parkland from Spadina Avenue to York Street. Thus, streetcars since then run on a roadside right-of-way immediately adjacent to a park on its southern edge.

The Toronto Transit Commission eliminated all Sunday-only stops on June 7, 2015, as these stops slowed down streetcars making it more difficult to meet scheduled stops. Sunday stops, which served Christian churches, were deemed unfair to non-Christian places of worship, which never had the equivalent of a Sunday stop. Toronto originally created Sunday stops in the 1920s along its streetcar routes to help worshippers get to church on Sunday for religious services.

The first two Flexity Outlook streetcars entered service on route 510 Spadina, on August 31, 2014; at the same time, all-door boarding and proof-of-payment (POP) was introduced on all 510 Spadina streetcars. Fare payments by Presto on the Flexity cars was introduced on November 30, 2014. On November 22, 2015, the TTC started to operate its new fleet of Flexity Outlook streetcars from its new Leslie Barns maintenance and storage facility.

On December 14, 2015, the TTC expanded Presto, POP and all-door loading to include all streetcars on all routes. All streetcar passengers are required to carry proof that they have paid their fares such as a validated TTC senior, youth or student ticket; an adult single-ride ticket; a paper transfer; or a Presto card or ticket while riding. At the same time, the TTC also activated the option for customers to purchase single-ride tickets using debit or credit cards on the fare vending machines on Flexity Outlook streetcars.

With the January 3, 2016, service changes, 510 Spadina became the first wheelchair-accessible streetcar route using mainly Flexity streetcars. However, CLRV and ALRV streetcars were used in some cases as a backup plan in the event there were not enough Flexity streetcars.

On June 19, 2016, the TTC launched the 514 Cherry streetcar route to supplement 504 King service along King Street between Dufferin and Sumach streets. The new route operated every 15 minutes or better and initially used some and later only the Commission's new accessible Flexity streetcars. The eastern end of the 514 route ran on a newly constructed branch, originally named the Cherry Street streetcar line, which is located in a reserved side-of-street right-of-way.

On September 12, 2017, 509 Harbourfront became the first streetcar route in Toronto to operate Flexity streetcars with electrical pickup by pantograph instead of trolley pole. That November, the King Street Transit Priority Corridor, a transit mall, was established along King Street between Bathurst and Jarvis streets.

On October 7, 2018, the 514 Cherry route was permanently cancelled. The service it provided was replaced by the 504 King, which was divided into two overlapping branches, each to one of the termini (Dufferin Gate Loop and Distillery Loop) of the former 514 route. That December, the TTC eliminated the option for passengers to purchase single-ride tickets by credit and debit cards on the Flexity streetcars due to reliability issues with the fare vending machines.

On September 2, 2019, the TTC retired the last of its ALRV streetcars. The next day, due to the construction work at the Queen, Kingston Road, Eastern Avenue intersection, the TTC eliminated the 502 Downtowner service indefinitely. Concordantly, the 503 Kingston Rd service, which used to operate during rush hours only, was upgraded to operate during all daytime hours Monday through Friday. This change also affected the 501 Queen service, with buses replacing streetcars east of Queen Street and Greenwood Avenue. The construction projects ended that November. While the 501 Queen resumed full streetcar service, the 502 remained eliminated and the consolidation of Kingston Road service into the 503 Kingston Rd route remained in effect.

On December 29, 2019, the TTC retired the last of its high-floor streetcars, the CLRVs. The final day for the CLRVs included a ceremonial farewell voyage along Queen Street, although the TTC plans to retain two CLRVs in Toronto for special events and charters. Since the retirement of the CLRVs, all TTC surface routes are served by accessible low-floor vehicles.

Incidents

On December 16, 2010, the TTC suffered its worst accident since the Russell Hill subway crash in 1995. Up to 17 people were sent to hospital with serious but non-life-threatening injuries after a 505 Dundas streetcar heading eastbound collided with a Greyhound bus at Dundas and River Streets.

Routes

Based on 2013 statistics, the TTC operated  of routes on  streetcar network (double or single track) throughout Toronto.  As of February 2022, there are nine regular streetcar routes on the TTC network.

Typically, all streetcar routes are serviced by low-floor and accessible Flexity Outlook vehicles. When replacement bus service is required (e.g., for track reconstruction, special events, emergencies, streetcar shortages), replacement buses bear the same route number and name as the corresponding streetcar route.

Route numbers

Until 1980, streetcar routes had names but not numbers. When the CLRVs were introduced, the TTC assigned route numbers in the 500 series. CLRVs have a single front rollsign showing various combinations of route number and destination, while PCC streetcars showed a route identifier (route name until the 1980s and later route number) and destination on two separate front rollsigns. The digital destination signs on the Flexity Outlook streetcars show route number, route name and destination. Before 2018, streetcar-replacement bus services indicated route number and destination but not route name, like the CLRVs.

The four streetcar-operated Blue Night Network routes have been assigned 300-series route numbers. The other exception to the 500 series numbering was the Harbourfront LRT streetcar. When introduced in 1990, this route was numbered 604, which was intended to group it with the old (albeit unposted) numbering scheme for Toronto subway routes. In 1996, the TTC overhauled its rapid transit route numbers and stopped trying to market the Harbourfront route as "rapid transit". The number was changed to 510. The tracks were later extended in two directions to form the 510 Spadina and 509 Harbourfront routes.

Subway connections

There are underground connections between streetcars and the subway at , Spadina, and Union stations, and streetcars enter , , , , and  stations at street level. At the eight downtown stations, excepting Union, from  to  on Line 1 Yonge–University, streetcars stop on the street outside the station entrances. Union station serves as the hub for both the TTC and the GO Transit system.

Dedicated rights-of-way and transit malls
The majority of streetcar routes in Toronto operate in mixed traffic, generally reflecting the original track configurations of the streetcar system, a system that dates back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, newer trackage has largely been established within dedicated rights-of-way, in order to allow streetcars to operate with fewer disruptions due to delays caused by automobile traffic. Most of the system's dedicated rights-of-way operate within the median of existing streets, separated from general traffic by raised curbs and controlled by specialized traffic signals at intersections. Queen streetcars have operated on such a right-of-way along the Queensway between Humber and Sunnyside loops since 1957. Since the 1990s, dedicated rights-of-way have been opened downtown along Queens Quay, Spadina Avenue, St. Clair Avenue West, and Fleet Street.

Short sections of the track also operate in a tunnel (to connect with Spadina, Union, and St. Clair West subway stations). The most significant section of underground streetcar trackage is a tunnel underneath Bay Street connecting Queens Quay with Union station; this section, which is approximately  long, includes one intermediate underground station at Bay Street and Queens Quay.

During the late 2000s, the TTC reinstated a separated right-of-way, which had been removed between 1928 and 1935, on St. Clair Avenue for the entire 512 St. Clair route. A court decision obtained by local merchants in October 2005 had brought construction to a halt and put the project in doubt; the judicial panel then recused themselves, and the delay for a new decision adversely affected the construction schedule. A new judicial panel decided in February 2006 in favour of the city and construction resumed in mid-2006. One-third of the St. Clair right-of-way was completed by the end of 2006 and streetcars began using it on February 18, 2007. The portion finished was from St. Clair station (Yonge Street) to Vaughan Road. The second phase started construction in mid-2007 from Dufferin Street to Caledonia Road. Service resumed using the second and third phases on December 20, 2009, extending streetcar service from St. Clair to Earlscourt Loop located just south and west of Lansdowne Avenue. The fourth and final phase from Earlscourt Loop to Gunns Loop (just west of Keele Street) is completed and full streetcar service over the entire route was finally restored on June 30, 2010.

Between September 2007 and March 2008, the tracks on Fleet Street between Bathurst Street and the Exhibition Loop were converted to a dedicated right-of-way and opened for the 511 Bathurst and the 509 Harbourfront streetcars. Streetcar track and overhead power line were also installed at the Fleet loop, which is located at the Queen's Wharf Lighthouse.

The eastern portion of the 504A King route runs on a side-of-street right-of-way. It was constructed starting in 2012 to support redevelopment in the West Don Lands and the Distillery District, former industrial areas.

As part of the King Street Pilot Project, a temporary transit mall was set up along King Street for a one-year trial period starting in mid-November 2017. Although not a dedicated right-of-way, the transit mall achieves the goal of preventing road traffic from impeding streetcar service. Road traffic is discouraged from using the mall by being forced to leave the mall via a right turn at most signalized intersections. This project has since been extended and made permanent under the name King Street Transit Priority Corridor.

Planned expansion
As of 2022, the City of Toronto and the TTC were planning the East Bayfront LRT to run along Queens Quay East from Union station to the Port Lands, to complement the 509 Harbourfront line.

In 2019, the TTC was considering changes to several streetcar routes. , these ideas had not been implemented. The changes considered were:
 Splitting 501 Queen into two overlapping branches: 501A from Neville Park Loop to Sunnyside Loop, and 501B from Long Branch Loop to a new Riverside Loop, to be constructed along Broadview Avenue just north of Queen Street East
 Extending 504B west to Humber Loop and later to a proposed Park Lawn Loop
 Extending 503 Kingston Road west to Dufferin Gate Loop

The City of Toronto proposed the Waterfront West LRT, a streetcar route that would run from Long Branch Loop along Lake Shore Boulevard and the Queensway to Colbourne Lodge Drive and then adjacent to the Lake Shore Boulevard via Dufferin Gate Loop to Exhibition Loop and into Union Station via Queens Quay. New track on a private right-of-way would be required between Colbourne Lodge Drive and Exhibition Loop.
In 2019, the City of Toronto approved new track linking Dufferin Gate and Exhibition Loops; however, , no construction has started.

, two light-rail linesLine 5 Eglinton and Line 6 Finch Westare under construction. These two lines are not part of the Toronto streetcar system and use incompatible vehicles. (They use standard-gauge track rather than the streetcar system's broad gauge.) Both lines are considered part of the Toronto subway system.

Discontinued streetcar routes
Between late 1921 and 1923, the TTC connected and merged many of the routes it inherited from the Toronto Railway Company and the Toronto Civic Railways. On July 1, 1923, the TTC did a major reorganization of routes whereby 9 new routes were created, 6 routes were discontinued, 13 were modified and 8 routes remained unmodified. The following list shows only those routes discontinued after this reorganization.

Rolling stock

Streetcars acquired by the TTC

When the TTC was created in 1921, it acquired hundreds of cars from its two predecessor companies: the Toronto Railway Company and the Toronto Civic Railways. In 1927, the TTC acquired the radial cars of the former Toronto & York Radial Railway when it took over operation of that system from the Hydro-Electric Railways.

In the 1920s, the TTC purchased new Peter Witt streetcars, and they remained in use into the 1960s. In 1938, the TTC started to operate its first Presidents' Conference Cars (PCC), eventually operating more than any other city in North America. In 1979, the Canadian Light Rail Vehicles entered revenue service, followed by their longer, articulated variants, the ALRVs, in 1988. The last of the PCC vehicles were retired from full-time revenue service in 1995.

On August 31, 2014, the TTC started operating its first Bombardier Flexity Outlook vehicles. The last of the older CLRV and ALRV vehicles were retired from regular service in December 2019.

The following table summarizes streetcars purchased by the TTC since 1921. The main article has more details on rosters, including streetcars inherited from the Toronto Railway Company and the Toronto Civic Railways, which are not summarized here.

Streetcar shortage (2016–2020)
From 2016 to 2020, the TTC faced a streetcar shortage because of:

 Delays in the delivery of the new Flexity streetcars
 The declining reliability and retirement of the aging CLRV/ALRV fleet
 A 20 percent increase in streetcar ridership since 2008
 Warranty repairs on 67 Flexity streetcars requiring the shipment of several streetcars at a time to a Bombardier plant

In January 2017, the TTC claimed that delays in delivery of the new Flexity Outlook streetcars had resulted in both streetcar and bus shortages. Because the CLRV/ALRV streetcars required extra maintenance, only 170 of the 200 CLRVs and ALRVs could be put into service. This shortage led to the replacement of streetcars by buses on some routes, which in turn led to a reduction of service on some bus routes.

To address the streetcar shortage, as well as construction projects, the TTC used bus substitution at various times on several streetcar routes. The first bus substitution due to the streetcar shortage occurred on the 502 Downtowner route on October 11, 2016.

Ridership on the 504 King increased by 25 percent after the implementation of the King Street Transit Priority Corridor through downtown King Street. Thus, in February 2018, the TTC replaced the CLRV streetcars on routes 505 Dundas and 506 Carlton with buses and reassigned those streetcars to other routes, such as 504 King and 511 Bathurst, to handle crowding from increased ridership.

The streetcar fleet capacity had not grown for almost three decades after the CLRVs and ALRVs were introduced. After delivery of the last of the initial 204 Flexity cars ordered, the TTC planned to purchase another 60 cars; however, the TTC estimated that would only satisfy demand until 2023 instead of 2027 as originally planned. Bombardier was the expected supplier for additional streetcars because, if the TTC chose another supplier, a prototype modified for Toronto's track characteristics would not be ready until 2023, with first delivery in 2024 or 2025.

By June 2020, the streetcar shortage had been alleviated by the reduction in ridership due to the COVID-19 pandemic in conjunction with temporary bus replacements on routes 511 Bathurst and 506 Carlton to accommodate construction projects. With more streetcars available, the TTC could ship up 19 extra streetcars to a Bombardier plant for warranty repairs, as well as introduce Flexity streetcars for the first time on route 503 Kingston Rd.

On October 22, 2020, the TTC board approved the immediate purchase of 13 additional streetcars from Bombardier for delivery in 2023, with an option for 47 more cars, if funding from senior levels of government became available. If the option were taken, the fleet size would increase to 264 streetcars by 2025. Since the existing carhouses can only hold 239 streetcars, the TTC recommended setting up a carhouse at the Hillcrest Complex to hold 25 streetcars.

Infrastructure

Track characteristics
The track on the Toronto streetcar system has characteristics of non-standard gauge, tight curve radii and single-point switches that previous generations of high-floor streetcars were adept at handling. Some of these characteristics were problematic for Bombardier when it adapted its low-floor Flexity Outlook for Toronto's streetcar system.

Track gauge

All streetcar lines use the unique Toronto gauge of  which is  wider than the  used by most other rail lines in Canada. This broad gauge was adopted in 1861 for the city's horse-drawn streetcar lines to allow horse-drawn wagons and carriages to use the inside of the rail for a smoother ride through muddy, unpaved streets. The gauge also had the effect of precluding the movement of standard-gauge freight cars along streetcar lines. The unique gauge has remained to this day because it is easier to adapt new rail vehicles to this gauge than to convert the entire system to standard gauge. The three heavy-rail lines of the Toronto subway also use the unique gauge; however, the light-metro Line 3 Scarborough and two light rail lines under-construction (Line 5 Eglinton and Line 6 Finch West) use standard gauge.

Track curvature
Curved track on the streetcar system has a very short minimum radius of curvature, with streetcars designed for a minimum radius of . The tightest curves are  at Roncesvalles Carhouse and Russell Carhouse. Almost all turning loops on the system have curves of less than .

Toronto's Flexity Outlook vehicles are designed for a minimum radius of . In contrast, the standard Flexity Outlook, as well as the Flexity Freedom (used on Line 5 Eglinton), both require a minimum radius of .

Track switches

As with most legacy streetcar systems in North America, the TTC uses single-point switches in special work throughout the system. In contrast, most light-rail systems use double-point switches, with a movable blade on each track. With single-point switches, the blade is only on the inner rail of the curve, and streetcars must have a rigid, continuous axle to pull the wheel on the outer rail through the curve without the blade. Thus, low-floor streetcars with split axles cannot operate through single-point switches. In the early days of the CLRV, Bochum wheels with rubber rings holding the axle caused derailments due to a lack of rigidity, and had to be replaced with SAB wheels.

Streetcar switches are either manual or automatic. For automatic switches, there are loop antennae buried in the road and two transmitters onboard the vehicles. One transmitter is located at the front of the car to set and lock the switch; the second is at the rear to unlock the switch. Because of failing electronics, defective antennae, or the failure of the system to unlock after passage of a car, there is the risk of a streetcar taking the wrong path at a switch.

In 2002, the TTC instituted a "stop, check, go" rule for all facing point switches. Streetcar operators, when approaching such switches, must stop and check the switch-blade setting before proceeding. In 2008, an operator forgot to make this check, which resulted in two streetcars colliding. About 2015, the TTC modified the "stop, check, go" process to include pointing a finger. Each streetcar operator, upon arriving at a facing switch-point, is to stop short of the switch, point with their finger toward the switch's position to confirm that the switch is aligned properly for the streetcar's intended movement, and then proceed.

Loops

Since all of Toronto's current streetcars are single-ended, turning loops are provided at the normal endpoints of each route and at likely intermediate turnback locations. A routing on-street around one or more city blocks may serve as a loop, but most loops on the system are wholly or partly off-street. Many of these are also interchange points with subway or bus services.

Grand unions

The Toronto streetcar system has three grand unions where a streetcar approaching from any direction at a double-track streetcar junction can turn left or right or pass straight through. , Toronto was the only city in North America to still have full grand unions; other North American cities may have partial unions. The three full grand unions in Toronto are at:
 Spadina Avenue and Queen Street West
 Spadina Avenue and King Street West
 Bathurst Street and King Street West

There is also one  union at King Street West and Dufferin Street missing only the south-to-west curve. There are seven unions that are two curves short of a grand union. They are from east to west:
 Parliament Street and Dundas Street East
 Parliament Street and Queen Street East
 Church Street and Dundas Street East
 Queen Street West and Victoria Street
 Spadina Avenue and College Street
 Bathurst Street and Dundas Street West
 King Street West, Queen Street West, The Queensway and Roncesvalles Avenue

Grand unions need to be replaced as their tracks wear out. The TTC requires two years of planning and preparation to replace a grand union. Once replaced, the tracks at the grand union are expected to last 20 to 25 years before needing replacement again.

Non-revenue streetcar lines
The streetcar system has non-revenue lines that inter-connect revenue routes and provide alternate routes for planned and emergency diversions. Some non-revenue lines are necessary for streetcars going in and out of service. Most non-revenue lines are located in downtown Toronto; they include, roughly from east to west:
 Leslie Street between Queen Street East and the Leslie Barns: This connects a carhouse to the rest of the streetcar system.
 Coxwell Avenue between lower Gerrard Street East and Queen Street East
 Parliament Street between Gerrard Street East and King Street East
 Church Street between Carlton Street and King Street East
 Church Street southbound to Wellington Street westbound to York Street northbound: The 503 Kingston Rd streetcar used this single-track line as a turning loop until 2017.
 Victoria Street between Dundas Street East and Adelaide Street East
 Richmond Street East from Church Street to York Street (westbound only)
 Adelaide Street East from Victoria Street to Church Street (eastbound only)
 York Street from King Street West to Queen Street West (northbound only)
 Bay Street between College Street and Dundas Street West
 McCaul Street between Queen Street East and College Street
 Bathurst Street between Bathurst station and St. Clair Avenue West (segment between Vaughan Road and St. Clair Avenue West is northbound only): This connects the otherwise isolated 512 St. Clair streetcar line and the Hillcrest Complex to the rest of the streetcar system.
 Vaughan Road south of St. Clair Avenue West (southbound only) is part of the above non-revenue streetcar line
 Shaw Street between King Street West and Queen Street West
 Ossington Avenue between Dundas Street West and College Street
 Dufferin Street between King Street West and Queen Street West

Richmond, Adelaide, Wellington and York Streets used to be two-way streets with double streetcar tracks. After these streets were converted to one-way streets, the TTC had to abandon the use of the wrong-way track.

To accommodate construction of the Ontario Line near Queen station, Metrolinx, the line's sponsor, requires the suspension of streetcar traffic between Church and York Streets for 4.5 years. Metrolinx agreed to construct a new southbound streetcar track on York Street at least to Adelaide Street West, and a new eastbound streetcar track on Adelaide Street between York and Victoria Streets. During the diversion, westbound 501 Queen streetcars would divert via Church, Richmond and York Streets while eastbound streetcars would divert via York, Adelaide and Church Streets. After Queen Street reopens to through traffic, the new streetcar tracks would be retained as non-revenue tracks to provide the TTC with flexibility for future diversions. The City of Toronto also intends to restore non-revenue streetcar tracks on Adelaide Street between Charlotte and York Streets in addition to the restoration of tracks between York and Victoria Streets to provide further flexibility for diversions.

Electrical pickup

The older CLRV and ALRV streetcars had only a trolley pole. Flexity Outlook streetcars have both a pantograph and a trolley pole. All streetcars in service had been using the trolley pole until September 12, 2017, when 509 Harbourfront became the first route to use the pantograph.

With the introduction of the Flexity streetcars, the TTC plans to convert the entire system to be pantograph-compatible. The new streetcars need 50 percent more electrical current than the older streetcars, and use of the trolley pole limits the amount of electricity the new cars can draw from the overhead wire, resulting in reduced performance. One consequence of trolley pole use on the Flexity streetcars is that air conditioning does not function in summer. With pantograph operation, the TTC expects Flexity streetcars to have more efficient heating and air conditioning systems, better vehicle performance and fewer delays caused by disconnections from overhead wires.

Since 2008, the TTC has been converting the streetcar overhead wire to be compatible for pantograph electrical pickup as well as for trolley poles. The overhead over the Fleet Street tracks was the first to be converted. The new overhead uses different hangers so that pantographs do not strike supporting crosswires. It also uses a different gauge of wire to handle the higher electrical demands of Flexity Outlook streetcars.

During a rainy period in February 2018, the TTC received an incentive to expedite the conversion of the electrical overhead for pantograph use by the Flexity streetcars. On February 20, 2018, Flexity streetcars using trolley poles were pulling down some of the overhead. In Toronto, the tip of the trolley pole has a shoe with a carbon insert to collect current. The carbon insert also lowers the trolley shoe so that it does not strike hangers that are not yet pantograph-compatible. During wet weather, these carbon inserts wear out faster, needing replacement after a day or two for older streetcars. However, because the Flexity streetcars draw more current than older streetcars, their carbon inserts wore out faster in less than eight hours in the wet weather. (There was also an issue with the quality of carbon the TTC purchased.) With pantographs, this would be less of a problem as the pantograph blades have a larger contact area than a trolley shoe to absorb wear. Because of this incident, the TTC decided it should accelerate the conversion of overhead for pantograph use.

The first three routes to operate with pantographs were 509 Harbourfront on September 12, 2017, 510 Spadina on May 14, 2018, and 512 St. Clair on October 1, 2018. The streetcar system has almost  of streetcar overhead along streets and in yards. , 80 percent of the overhead has been converted for pantograph use and half of all streetcar routes use pantographs. The TTC expects full conversion by the first quarter of 2025, when trolley poles will no longer be supported.

Dedicated station
 is the one standalone underground station that does not connect to the subway. It is located in the tunnel, shared by the 509 Harbourfront and 510 Spadina routes, between Queens Quay West and Union subway station.

Carhouses

Toronto's streetcars are housed and maintained at various carhouses or "streetcar barns":

Several carhouses were once part of the TTC's streetcar operations, many inherited from the TTC's predecessors Toronto Railway Company and Toronto Civic Railways:

Source: The TTC's Active Carhouses

Winter operational issues

Extreme cold weather
The fleet of CLRV and ALRV streetcars experienced several operational issues during extreme cold temperatures during late 2013 and early 2014, late 2014 and early 2015, late 2017 and early 2018, and late 2018 and early 2019, as doors and brakes failed as moisture in the pneumatic lines froze. Moisture also caused track sanders to fail. Buses were used to replace streetcars unfit for service, some of which had failed while in service. The new Flexity Outlook streetcars were unaffected by the weather, as they use electronic braking and door operations. During an extreme cold snap between January 20 and 22, 2019, none of the CLRV/ALRV streetcars were in service due to the high risk of breakdowns in the cold weather. Instead, Flexity streetcars, along with buses, were used to provide service. The remaining ALRVs stayed out of service for the rest of that winter season.

By 2020, the CLRV/ALRV vehicles had been entirely replaced by new Flexity Outlook streetcars, mitigating these operational issues from occurring in the foreseeable future.

Snow and freezing rain
The streetcar overhead is vulnerable during freezing rain storms. During such storms, the TTC applies anti-freeze to the overhead wire to prevent ice from interrupting electrical contact. In addition, the TTC attaches "sliders" to trolley poles on every fifth streetcar to knock ice off the overhead wire. The TTC places overhead crews on standby at various locations around the streetcar network to address problems of power loss or overhead wires coming down.

The anti-freeze used on the overheard wire is also applied to streetcar switches on the network. In addition, the TTC runs "storm cars" overnight on all routes to prevent any ice build-up on switches that the anti-freeze could not prevent.

In severe storms, the TTC replaces streetcars with buses on some routes, or portions of routes, in order to concentrate streetcars downtown. By creating a smaller service area, it is easier for TTC crews to keep track and overhead wires free of snow and ice. In the event of a severe storm, the TTC replaces streetcars with buses on routes 506 Carlton, 511 Bathurst, and 512 St. Clair, plus the outer portions of 501 Queen and 504 King.

Another problem that the TTC must cope with following a heavy snowfall is that motorists park cars too close to streetcar tracks because snow banks narrow streets. Motorists are warned that such vehicles will be towed to prevent streetcar service delays and diversions.

Advertising
Pattison Outdoor Advertising is responsible for posters outside and inside the streetcars, as well as outside and inside the buses and the subway system.

See also

Toronto Transit Commission bus system
Urban rail transit in Canada
Metrolinx light rail projects under construction in Toronto:
Line 5 Eglinton
Line 6 Finch West
Queen subway line (a streetcar tunnel)
 used by 501 Queen and 508 Lake Shore
 along 504 King route
Birney (Toronto streetcar) (a model of streetcar operated by the TTC)
Streetcars in North America (for other streetcar lines in North America)
List of street railways in Canada – a full list of operating and defunct street railways in the country

Notes

References

Inline citations

Other references

 – includes a timeline of the history of the Toronto streetcar system

External links

Toronto Transit Commission
Subway and streetcar map
Transit Toronto Streetcar Pages
The Toronto LRT Information Page
Geographically accurate map on Google Maps
 gallery of Toronto's streetcars on public-transport.net

Streetcars in Canada
1861 introductions
1861 in rail transport
4 ft 10⅞ in gauge railways
600 V DC railway electrification
Town tramway systems by city
Light rail in Canada
Electric railways in Canada
Street railways in Ontario

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
National Energy Guarantee: ACT won't support plan in current form as COAG meeting looms
By Elise Scott
Posted Thu 2 Aug 2018 at 5:16am Thursday 2 Aug 2018 at 5:16am Thu 2 Aug 2018 at 5:16am , updated Thu 2 Aug 2018 at 5:34am Thursday 2 Aug 2018 at 5:34am Thu 2 Aug 2018 at 5:34am
The ACT Government is demanding improvements to the NEG before they to sign on. (ABC News: Andrew Kennedy)
abc.net.au/news/national-energy-guarantee-act-will-not-support-current-plan/10066420
ACT Climate Change Minister, Shane Rattenbury, has slammed the Federal Government's national energy policy as "false advertising" and a "Frankenstein's monster" of policies.
The ACT Government today indicated it would not support the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) in its current form, just a week out from a major meeting of the country's energy ministers.
Mr Rattenbury said the NEG was "cobbled together out of bits and pieces" of policy that had not been ruled out by sections of the Coalition party room.
"Unfortunately in its current form, the NEG is largely false advertising, won't achieve what it promises, and in fact it is likely to have a negative impact in all of the areas it claims to improve," he said.
"One of the other ironies is that this policy is designed to deliver certainty and we can see that the low level of ambition that is built into it means there will not be certainty.
"As soon as there is a change of Federal Government in Australia a new target will be put in place."
The NEG requires electricity retailers to supply enough energy to cover peak loads while also meeting emissions reduction targets.
Next Friday at the COAG meeting, Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg will attempt to persuade states and territories to sign up to the NEG.
What the ACT wants from NEG:
more frequent reviews to assess emissions reductions against the Paris agreement
26 per cent reduction target locked in as a permanent floor
assurance NEG will not be used to support coal-fired power stations
confirmation that states and territories can pursue their own targets that exceed the Commonwealth's
state and territory renewable energy targets to be additional to national target
But the ACT could become a hurdle, with the Legislative Assembly today passing a motion calling for improvements to the policy to address shortcomings — including a weak emissions reduction target, likely poor economic outcomes, a failure to recognise state and territory renewable energy targets.
The assembly also noted the "likelihood [the NEG] would be used as a Trojan horse for policies to prop-up Australia's coal industry" and called on the ACT Government to only support a policy that would transition the energy market to a sustainable and affordable energy system.
"The current NEG proposal we do not believe will achieve this," Mr Rattenbury said.
But he said he was optimistic states and territories could find a "sensible way" through the negotiations.
"We are working with other jurisdictions to come up with a unified position on what we can put on the table," he said.
"I think it's useful to do that work prior to the actual meeting so the different jurisdictions can come up with working solutions."
We won't let NSW freeload off the ACT: Barr
Chief Minister Andrew Barr said state and territory renewable energy targets must be additional to the national emissions reduction target, to prevent some states piggybacking off other's efforts.
"It assumes all voluntary effort by state and territory governments that have already set more ambitious renewable energy and emission reduction targets will be subsumed into the national effort," he said.
"So in effect the ACT, Victoria and Queensland will be doing all of the heavy lifting on national emissions reductions through our ambitious schemes — leaving states like New South Wales to freeload off our efforts.
"That isn't fair and it isn't good enough."
What is the NEG?
Malcolm Turnbull unveils his shiny new energy policy, complete with its own three-letter acronym. Here's what it all means.
The ACT has a 100 per cent renewable energy target by 2020.
"We will not let our community's leadership on renewables become an excuse for other parts of Australia doing less," Mr Barr said.
He said if the Commonwealth agreed to a series of changes, it would go "a long way" towards securing the ACT's agreement.
The Canberra Liberals did not vote against the call for improvements, but Opposition Leader Alistair Coe said the minister should get on with his job instead of grandstanding.
"Surely it's the minister's job to advocate for the ACT in this area," he said.
"He should not need to move motions calling upon himself to do what he should have already been doing, and that is seeking a better deal for Canberra's energy consumers."
The ACT Opposition supports the 100 per cent renewable energy target.
Posted 2 Aug 2018 2 Aug 2018 Thu 2 Aug 2018 at 5:16am , updated 2 Aug 2018 2 Aug 2018 Thu 2 Aug 2018 at 5:34am
These are the circuit breakers stopping Turnbull from switching on his national energy plan

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


As part of our top of the range support to support zip wire kits, we have this 10mm Platinum Plus support to support zip wire kit.
Simple to install and available in various lengths, this Platinum Plus 10mm zip wire kit comes with a a pendulum seat with chain cover .
This kit will give you a fantastic garden zip wire that has a great enclosed trolley (one that stays on the wire permanently) along with a lovely rubber pendulum seat making it easier for younger children to operate.


text:
<< Previous TITLE 22 / CHAPTER 68A Next >>
22 USC Ch. 68A: COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET UNION
From Title 22—FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
CHAPTER 68A—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET UNION
Findings on cooperative threat reduction.
5952, 5953. Repealed.
Funding for fiscal year 1994.
5955 to 5957. Repealed.
Authorization for additional fiscal year 1993 assistance to independent states of the former Soviet Union.
5961a.
Requirement for on-site managers.
§5951. Findings on cooperative threat reduction
The Congress finds that it is in the national security interest of the United States for the United States to do the following:
(1) Facilitate, on a priority basis, the transportation, storage, safeguarding, and elimination of nuclear and other weapons of the independent states of the former Soviet Union, including—
(A) the safe and secure storage of fissile materials derived from the elimination of nuclear weapons;
(B) the dismantlement of (i) intercontinental ballistic missiles and launchers for such missiles, (ii) submarine-launched ballistic missiles and launchers for such missiles, and (iii) heavy bombers; and
(C) the elimination of chemical, biological and other weapons capabilities.
(2) Facilitate, on a priority basis, the prevention of proliferation of weapons (and components of weapons) of mass destruction and destabilizing conventional weapons of the independent states of the former Soviet Union and the establishment of verifiable safeguards against the proliferation of such weapons and components.
(3) Facilitate, on a priority basis, the prevention of diversion of weapons-related scientific expertise of the independent states of the former Soviet Union to terrorist groups or third world countries.
(4) Support (A) the demilitarization of the defense-related industry and equipment of the independent states of the former Soviet Union, and (B) the conversion of such industry and equipment to civilian purposes and uses.
(5) Expand military-to-military and defense contacts between the United States and the independent states of the former Soviet Union.
(Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XII, §1202, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1777.)
Short Title of 2003 Amendment
Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXVI, §3601, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1822, provided that: "This title [enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and sections 1928, 5959, and 6321 of this title] may be cited as the 'Nuclear Security Initiative Act of 2003'."
Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XII, §1201, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1777, provided that: "This title [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993'."
Congressional Notification
Pub. L. 113–66, div. A, title XII, §1246(c)(3), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 924, as amended by Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XII, §1243(3), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3564, which required that the Secretary of Defense notify certain congressional committees of the Secretary's intent to provide the Russian Federation with any sensitive missile defense information not less than 7 days prior to the provision of such information, including an explanation of the reasons for providing the information and the reasons why providing the information would not compromise United States national security, was repealed by Pub. L. 114–92, div. A, title XVI, §1671(b)(1), Nov. 25, 2015, 129 Stat. 1130.
Briefings to Congressional Committees
Pub. L. 113–66, div. A, title XII, §1251(b), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 926, provided that: "Prior to signing an executive agreement with the Russian Federation relating to ballistic missile defense, the President, or the President's designee, shall brief the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives] and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on the objectives and contents of the executive agreement."
Sense of Congress on Agreements Between the United States and the Russian Federation on Nuclear Arms, Missile Defense Systems, and Long-Range Conventional Strike Systems
Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title XII, §1282, Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 2034, as amended by Pub. L. 114–92, div. A, title X, §1076(c), Nov. 25, 2015, 129 Stat. 998, provided that: "It is the sense of Congress that any agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation related to nuclear arms, missile defense systems, or long-range conventional strike systems obligating the United States to reduce or limit the Armed Forces or armaments of the United States in any militarily significant manner may be made only pursuant to the treaty-making power of the President as set forth in Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States."
Sharing of Classified United States Ballistic Missile Defense Information With the Russian Federation
Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title XII, §1244, Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1646, provided that:
"(a) Notification.—No classified United States ballistic missile defense information may be made available to the Russian Federation unless, 60 days prior to any instance in which the United States Government plans to provide such information to the Russian Federation, the President provides notification thereof to the appropriate congressional committees.
"(b) Elements of Notification.—Each notification provided pursuant to subsection (a) shall include the following:
"(1) A detailed description of the classified United States ballistic missile defense information to be provided.
"(2) An explanation of the national security interest in providing the information to the Russian Federation and any provisions for reciprocal sharing by the Russian Federation with the United States on its defensive systems.
"(3) A certification that providing the information is consistent with United States national disclosure policy as of the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 31, 2011] and that the decision to provide the information was made pursuant to a national disclosure policy review.
"(4) If applicable, a detailed explanation of whether any exceptions to national disclosure policy were required in order to provide the information to the Russian Federation and why such exceptions were required.
"(5) A certification that adequate measures are in place to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure. The certification shall include a description of the manner in which the information will be protected from unauthorized sharing or transfer to third parties as well as an analysis of the risks to the capabilities of the United States ballistic missile defense system if the information is shared or transferred to an unauthorized third party.
"(c) Form.—Each notification provided pursuant to subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
"(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.—For the purposes of this section, the term 'appropriate congressional committees' means—
"(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
"(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
"(e) Classified United States Ballistic Missile Defense Information Defined.—For the purposes of this section, the term 'classified United States ballistic missile defense information' means information related to United States ballistic missile defenses that is classified as of, or after, the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 31, 2011]."
Establishment of Interparliamentary Threat Reduction Working Group
Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXVI, §3622, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1824, provided that:
"(a) Establishment of Working Group.—There is hereby established a working group to be known as the 'Threat Reduction Working Group' as an interparliamentary group of the Congress of the United States and the legislature of the Russian Federation.
"(b) Purpose of Working Group.—The purpose of the working group established by subsection (a) shall be to explore means to enhance cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation with respect to nuclear nonproliferation and security and such other issues related to reducing the dangers of weapons of mass destruction as the members of the working group consider appropriate.
"(c) Membership.—(1) The majority leader of the Senate, after consultation with the minority leader of the Senate, shall appoint not more than 10 Senators to the working group established by subsection (a).
"(2) The Speaker of the House of Representatives, after consultation with the minority leader of the House of Representatives, shall appoint not more than 30 Members of the House to the working group."
Transfer to National Nuclear Security Administration of Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Relating to Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production in Russia
Pub. L. 107–314, div. C, title XXXI, §3151, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2736, as amended by Pub. L. 108–375, div. C, title XXXI, §3135, Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2170, provided that:
"(a) Transfer of Program.—There are hereby transferred to the Administrator for Nuclear Security the following:
"(1) The program, within the Cooperative Threat Reduction program of the Department of Defense, relating to the elimination of weapons grade plutonium production in Russia.
"(2) All functions, powers, duties, and activities of that program performed before the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 2, 2002] by the Department of Defense.
"(b) Transfer of Assets.—(1) Notwithstanding any restriction or limitation in law on the availability of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds specified in paragraph (2), so much of the property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds employed, used, held, available, or to be made available in connection with the program transferred by subsection (a) are transferred to the Administrator for use in connection with the program transferred.
"(2) The Cooperative Threat Reduction funds specified in this paragraph are the following:
"(A) Fiscal year 2002 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, as specified in section 1301(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107; 115 Stat. 1254; 22 U.S.C. 5952 note).
"(B) Fiscal year 2001 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, as specified in section 1301(b) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106–398; 114 Stat. 1654A–339; 22 U.S.C. 5959 note).
"(C) Fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, as specified in section 1301(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65; 113 Stat. 792; 22 U.S.C. 5952 note).
"(c) Availability of Transferred Funds.—(1) Notwithstanding any restriction or limitation in law on the availability of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds specified in subsection (b)(2), the Cooperative Threat Reduction funds transferred under subsection (b) for the program referred to in subsection (a) shall be available for activities as follows:
"(A) To design and construct, refurbish, or both, fossil fuel energy plants in Russia that provide alternative sources of energy to the energy plants in Russia that produce weapons grade plutonium.
"(B) To carry out limited safety upgrades of not more than three energy plants in Russia that produce weapons grade plutonium, provided that such upgrades do not extend the life of those plants.
"(2) Amounts available under paragraph (1) for activities referred to in that paragraph shall remain available for obligation for three fiscal years.
"(d) Limitation.—(1) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title or any other Act for the program referred to in subsection (a), the Administrator for Nuclear Security may not obligate any funds for construction, or obligate or expend more than $100,000,000 for that program, until 30 days after the later of—
"(A) the date on which the Administrator submits to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives], the Committee on International Relations [now Committee on Foreign Affairs] of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, a copy of an agreement or agreements entered into between the United States Government and the Government of the Russian Federation to shut down the three plutonium-producing reactors in Russia as specified under paragraph (2); and
"(B) the date on which the Administrator submits to the committees specified in subparagraph (A) a report on a plan to achieve international participation in the program referred to in subsection (a), including cost sharing.
"(2) The agreement (or agreements) under paragraph (1)(A) shall contain—
"(A) a commitment to shut down the three plutonium-producing reactors;
"(B) the date on which each such reactor will be shut down;
"(C) a schedule and milestones for each such reactor to complete the shutdown of such reactor by the date specified under subparagraph (B);
"(D) a schedule and milestones for refurbishment or construction of fossil fuel energy plants to be undertaken by the Government of the Russian Federation in support of the program;
"(E) an arrangement for access to sites and facilities necessary to meet such schedules and milestones;
"(F) an arrangement for audit and examination procedures in order to evaluate progress in meeting such schedules and milestones; and
"(G) any cost sharing arrangements between the United States Government and the Government of the Russian Federation in undertaking activities under such agreement (or agreements).
"(e) International Participation in Program.—(1) In order to achieve international participation in the program referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of Energy may, in consultation with the Secretary of State, enter into one or more agreements with any person, foreign government, or other international organization that the Secretary considers appropriate for the contribution of funds by such person, government, or organization for purposes of the program.
"(2) Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, and subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the Secretary may retain and utilize any amounts contributed by a person, government, or organization under an agreement under paragraph (1) for purposes of the program without further appropriation and without fiscal year limitation.
"(3) The Secretary may not utilize under paragraph (2) any amount contributed under an agreement under paragraph (1) until 30 days after the date on which the Secretary notifies the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives] of the intent to utilize such amount, including the source of such amount and the proposed purpose for which such amount will be utilized.
"(4) If any amount contributed under paragraph (1) has not been utilized within five years of receipt under that paragraph, the Secretary shall return such amount to the person, government, or organization contributing such amount under that paragraph.
"(5) Not later than 30 days after the receipt of any amount contributed under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a notice of the receipt of such amount.
"(6) Not later than October 31 each year, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the receipt and utilization of amounts under this subsection during the preceding fiscal year. Each report for a fiscal year shall set forth—
"(A) a statement of any amounts received under this subsection, including the source of each such amount; and
"(B) a statement of any amounts utilized under this subsection, including the purpose for which such amounts were utilized.
"(7) The authority of the Secretary to accept and utilize amounts under this subsection shall expire on December 31, 2011."
Accelerated Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium
Pub. L. 107–314, div. C, title XXXI, §3157, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2740, provided that:
"(a) Program on Accelerated Disposition of HEU Authorized.—(1) The Secretary of Energy may carry out a program to pursue with the Russian Federation options for blending highly enriched uranium so that the concentration of U–235 in such uranium is below 20 percent.
"(2) The options pursued under paragraph (1) shall include expansion of the Material Consolidation and Conversion program of the Department of Energy to include—
"(A) additional facilities for the blending of highly enriched uranium; and
"(B) additional centralized secure storage facilities for highly enriched uranium designated for blending.
"(3) Any site selected for the storage of uranium or blended material under paragraph (2)(B) shall undergo complete materials protection, control, and accounting upgrades before the commencement of the storage of uranium or blended material at such site under the program.
"(b) Construction With HEU Disposition Agreement.—Nothing in this section may be construed as terminating, modifying, or otherwise affecting requirements for the disposition of highly enriched uranium under the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation Concerning the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, signed at Washington on February 18, 1993.
"(c) Limitation on Release for Sale of Blended Uranium.—Uranium blended under this section may not be released for sale until the earlier of—
"(1) January 1, 2014; or
"(2) the date on which the Secretary certifies that such uranium can be absorbed into the global market without undue disruption to the uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment industry in the United States.
"(d) Amount for Activities.—Of the amount to be appropriated by section 3101(a)(2) [116 Stat. 2729] for the Department of Energy for the National Nuclear Security Administration for defense nuclear nonproliferation, up to $10,000,000 may be available for carrying out this section."
Plan for Accelerated Return of Weapons-Usable Nuclear Materials
"(a) Plan for Accelerated Return.—The Secretary of Energy shall work with the Russian Federation to develop a plan to accelerate the return to Russia of all weapons-usable nuclear materials located in research reactors and other facilities outside Russia that were supplied by the former Soviet Union.
"(b) Funding and Schedules.—As part of the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall identify the funding and schedules required to assist the research reactors and facilities referred to in that subsection in—
"(1) transferring highly enriched uranium to Russia; and
"(2) upgrading the materials protection, control, and accounting procedures at such research reactors and facilities until the weapons-usable nuclear materials in such reactors and facilities are returned in accordance with that subsection.
"(c) Coordination.—The provision of assistance under subsection (b) shall be closely coordinated with the International Atomic Energy Agency."
Plan for Securing Nuclear Weapons, Material, and Expertise of the States of the Former Soviet Union
Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title XII, §1205, Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1247, as amended by Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title XII, §1205, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2664, provided that:
"(a) Plan Required.—Not later than June 15, 2002, the President shall submit to Congress a plan, that has been developed in coordination with all relevant Federal agencies—
"(1) for cooperating with Russia on disposing, as soon as practicable, of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material in Russia that Russia does not retain in its nuclear arsenals;
"(2) for assisting Russia in downsizing its nuclear weapons research and production complex;
"(3) for cooperating with the other states of the former Soviet Union on disposing, as soon as practicable, of all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material in such states; and
"(4) for preventing the outflow from the states of the former Soviet Union of scientific expertise that could be used for developing nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and delivery systems for such weapons.
"(b) Content of Plan.—The plan required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
"(1) Specific goals and measurable objectives for programs that are designed to carry out the objectives described in subsection (a).
"(2) Criteria for success for such programs, and a strategy for eventual termination of United States contributions to such programs and assumption of the ongoing support of those programs by others.
"(3) A description of any administrative and organizational changes necessary to improve the coordination and effectiveness of such programs. In particular, the plan shall include consideration of the creation of an interagency committee that would have primary responsibilities within the executive branch for—
"(A) monitoring United States nonproliferation efforts in the states of the former Soviet Union;
"(B) coordinating the implementation of United States policy with respect to such efforts; and
"(C) recommending to the President integrated policies, budget options, and private sector and international contributions for such programs.
"(4) An estimate of the cost of carrying out such programs.
"(c) Consultation.—In developing the plan required by subsection (a), the President—
"(1) is encouraged to consult with the relevant states of the former Soviet Union regarding the practicality of various options; and
"(2) shall consult with the majority and minority leadership of the appropriate committees of Congress.
"(d) Annual Report on Implementation of Plan.—(1) Not later than January 31, 2003, and each year thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the implementation of the plan required by subsection (a) during the preceding year.
"(2) Each report under paragraph (1) shall include—
"(A) a discussion of progress made during the year covered by such report in the matters of the plan required by subsection (a);
"(B) a discussion of consultations with foreign nations, and in particular the Russian Federation, during such year on joint programs to implement the plan;
"(C) a discussion of cooperation, coordination, and integration during such year in the implementation of the plan among the various departments and agencies of the United States Government, as well as private entities that share objectives similar to the objectives of the plan; and
"(D) any recommendations that the President considers appropriate regarding modifications to law or regulations, or to the administration or organization of any Federal department or agency, in order to improve the effectiveness of any programs carried out during such year in the implementation of the plan."
[Functions of President under section 1205(d) of Pub. L. 107–107, set out above, delegated to Secretary of State by Memorandum of President of the United States, Nov. 2, 2005, 70 F.R. 72055.]
Russian Nonstrategic Nuclear Arms
Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title XIII, §1312, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 796, as amended by Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title XIII, §1308(g)(3)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-343, provided that: "It is the sense of Congress that—
"(1) it is in the interest of Russia to fully implement the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives announced in 1991 and 1992 by then-President of the Soviet Union Gorbachev and then-President of Russia Yeltsin;
"(2) the President of the United States should call on Russia to match the unilateral reductions in the United States inventory of tactical nuclear weapons, which have reduced the inventory by nearly 90 percent; and
"(3) if the re-certification under section 1310 [113 Stat. 795] is made, the President should emphasize the continued interest of the United States in working cooperatively with Russia to reduce the dangers associated with Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal."
Limitation on Use of Funds for Chemical Weapons Destruction Activities in Russia
Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title XIII, §1304, Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2163, provided that:
"(a) Limitation.—Subject to the limitation in section 1405(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85; 111 Stat. 1961), no funds authorized to be appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs under this Act [see Tables for classification] or any other Act may be obligated or expended for chemical weapons destruction activities in Russia (including activities for the planning, design, or construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility or for the dismantlement of an existing chemical weapons production facility) until the President submits to Congress a written certification described in subsection (b).
"(b) Presidential Certification.—A certification under this subsection is either of the following certifications by the President:
"(1) A certification that—
"(A) Russia is making reasonable progress toward the implementation of the Bilateral Destruction Agreement;
"(B) the United States and Russia have made substantial progress toward the resolution, to the satisfaction of the United States, of outstanding compliance issues under the Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding and the Bilateral Destruction Agreement; and
"(C) Russia has fully and accurately declared all information regarding its unitary and binary chemical weapons, chemical weapons facilities, and other facilities associated with chemical weapons.
"(2) A certification that the national security interests of the United States could be undermined by a policy of the United States not to carry out chemical weapons destruction activities under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs for which funds are authorized to be appropriated under this Act or any other Act for fiscal year 1999.
"(c) Definitions.—In this section:
"(1) The term 'Bilateral Destruction Agreement' means the Agreement Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Destruction and Non-production of Chemical Weapons and on Measures to Facilitate the Multilateral Convention on Banning Chemical Weapons signed on June 1, 1990.
"(2) The term 'Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding' means the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Regarding a Bilateral Verification Experiment and Data Exchange Related to Prohibition on Chemical Weapons, signed at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on September 23, 1989."
[Memorandum of President of the United States, July 16, 1999, 64 F.R. 40503, delegated to Secretary of Defense authority of President under section 1304(b)(2) of Public Law 105–261, set out above.]
Similar provisions were contained in the following prior authorization acts:
Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title XIV, §1406, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1961.
Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XII, §1209, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 472.
Congressional Reports on Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XII, §§1201, 1205, 1206, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 469, 470, 471, as amended by Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XIV, §1431, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2726; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, §1067(6), title XIII, §1311, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774, 796; Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title XIII, §1308(g)(1)(C)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-343; Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(4), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607, provided that:
"SEC. 1201. SPECIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS.
"(a) In General.—For purposes of section 301 [110 Stat. 245] and other provisions of this Act [see Tables for classification], Cooperative Threat Reduction programs are the programs specified in subsection (b).
"(b) Specified Programs.—The programs referred to in subsection (a) are the following programs with respect to states of the former Soviet Union:
"(1) Programs to facilitate the elimination, and the safe and secure transportation and storage, of nuclear, chemical, and other weapons, fissile material suitable for use in nuclear weapons, and their delivery vehicles.
"(2) Programs to facilitate the safe and secure storage of fissile materials derived from the elimination of nuclear weapons.
"(3) Programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapons-related technology and expertise.
"(4) Programs to expand military-to-military and defense contacts.
"[SEC. 1205. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(4), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607.]
"[SEC. 1206. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title XIII, §1308(g)(1)(C)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-343.]"
Condition on Assistance to Russia for Construction of Plutonium Storage Facility
Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XVI, §1612, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1850, provided:
"(a) Limitation.—Until a certification under subsection (b) is made, no funds may be obligated or expended by the United States for the purpose of assisting the Ministry of Atomic Energy of Russia to construct a storage facility for surplus plutonium from dismantled weapons.
"(b) Certification of Russia's Commitment to Halt Chemical Separation of Weapon-Grade Plutonium.—The prohibition in subsection (a) shall cease to apply upon a certification by the President to Congress that Russia—
"(1) is committed to halting the chemical separation of weapon-grade plutonium from spent nuclear fuel; and
"(2) is taking all practical steps to halt such separation at the earliest possible date.
"(c) Sense of Congress on Plutonium Policy.—It is the sense of Congress that a key objective of the United States with respect to the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons should be to obtain a clear and unequivocal commitment from the Government of Russia that it will (1) cease all production and separation of weapon-grade plutonium, and (2) halt chemical separation of plutonium produced in civil nuclear power reactors.
"(d) Report.—Not later than June 1, 1994, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the status of efforts by the United States to secure the commitments and achieve the objective described in subsections (b) and (c). The President shall include in the report a discussion of the status of joint efforts by the United States and Russia to replace any remaining Russian plutonium production reactors with alternative power sources or to convert such reactors to operation with alternative fuels that would permit their operation without generating weapon-grade plutonium."
[Memorandum of President of the United States, Mar. 10, 1994, 59 F.R. 14079, delegated to Secretary of State authority and duty of President under section 1612(b) and (d) of Public Law 103–160 set out above.]
§§5952, 5953. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(3), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607
Section 5952, Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XII, §1203, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1778; Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title XIII, §1306(c), formerly §1306(e), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2673, renumbered §1306(c), Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title XIII, §1303(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3474; Pub. L. 110–53, title XVIII, §1811(2), Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 492; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title XIII, §1304(a)(2), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 412, related to authority for programs to facilitate cooperative threat reduction.
Section 5953, Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XII, §1204, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1779, authorized designation of Demilitarization Enterprise Fund.
Utilization of Contributions to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XIII, §1303, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2557, as amended by Pub. L. 113–66, div. A, title XIII, §1303, Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 931, which authorized the Secretary of Defense, through Dec. 31, 2018, to enter into agreements with any person (including a foreign government, international organization, multinational entity, or any other entity) under which the person would contribute funds for activities conducted under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(12)(A), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607.
Cooperative Threat Reduction Defense and Military Contacts Program
Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XIII, §1306(a), Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2560, which set out standards for the administration of the Defense and Military Contacts Program under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(12)(C), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607.
Limited Waiver of Restrictions on Use of Funds for Threat Reduction in States of the Former Soviet Union
Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title XIII, §1306(a)–(d), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2673, as amended by Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title XIII, §1303(1), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3474, which authorized the President to waive the restrictions and eligibility requirements set out in former section 5952(d) of this title for the obligation and expenditure of funds under that section for assistance to an independent state of the former Soviet Union, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(10), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607.
Requirement To Consider Use of Revenue Generated by Activities Carried Out Under Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title XIII, §1304, Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1255, which required that the Secretary of Defense consider the use of revenue generated by activities carried out under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in negotiating and executing contracts with Russia to carry out such programs, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(9), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607.
Limitation on Use of Funds for Certain Purposes
Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title XIII, §1305, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2673, which prohibited the use of funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs for the design, planning, or construction of a second wing for a storage facility for Russian fissile material, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(10), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607.
Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title XIII, §1303], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-340, which prohibited the obligation or expenditure of funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs for the elimination of conventional weapons or the delivery vehicles primarily intended to deliver such weapons, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(8)(A), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607.
Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title XIII, §1304], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-340, as amended by Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title XIII, §1305(b), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1255, which limited the use of funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs for the planning, design, or construction of the first wing for the storage facility for Russian fissile material referred to in section 1302(a)(5) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (114 Stat. 1654–339) to not more than $412,600,000, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(8)(A), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607.
Requirement To Submit Summary of Amounts Requested by Project Category
Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title XIII, §1307, Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2165, as amended by Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title XIII, §1304, Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2094, which required that the Secretary of Defense submit to Congress an annual descriptive summary of the appropriations requested for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and the obligation or expenditure of such appropriations for the previous fiscal year, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(6), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607.
§5954. Funding for fiscal year 1994
(a) Authorization of appropriations
Funds authorized to be appropriated under section 301(21) 1 shall be available for cooperative threat reduction with states of the former Soviet Union under this chapter.
(b) Limitations
(1) Not more than $15,000,000 of the funds referred to in subsection (a) may be made available for programs authorized in subsection (b)(6) of section 5952 1 of this title.
(2) Not more than $20,000,000 of such funds may be made available for programs authorized in subsection (b)(7) of section 5952 1 of this title.
(3) Not more than $40,000,000 of such funds may be made available for grants to the Demilitarization Enterprise Fund designated pursuant to section 5953 1 of this title and for related administrative expenses.
(c) Authorization of extension of availability of prior year funds
To the extent provided in appropriations Acts, the authority to transfer funds of the Department of Defense provided in section 9110(a) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102–396; 106 Stat. 1928), and in section 108 of Public Law 102–229 (105 Stat. 1708) shall continue to be in effect during fiscal year 1994.
Section 301(21), referred to in subsec. (a), means section 301(21) of Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title III, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1616, which is not classified to the Code.
Sections 5952 and 5953 of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), were repealed by Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(3), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607.
Section 9110(a) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993, referred to in subsec. (c), is section 9110(a) of Pub. L. 102–396, title IX, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1928, which is not classified to the Code.
Section 108 of Public Law 102–229, referred to in subsec. (c), is section 108 of Pub. L. 102–229, title I, Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1708, as amended, which is not classified to the Code.
§5955. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(3), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607
Section, Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XII, §1206, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1781, related to prior notice to Congress of obligation of funds for cooperative threat reduction programs.
§5956. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title XIII, §1308(g)(1)(A)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-343
Section, Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XII, §1207, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1782; Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XII, §§1202, 1208(b), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2882, 2887; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XV, §1504(a)(7), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 513, required submission of semiannual report.
Section, Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XII, §1208, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1782, defined "appropriate congressional committees" for this chapter.
§5958. Authorization for additional fiscal year 1993 assistance to independent states of the former Soviet Union
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1993 for "Operation and Maintenance, Defense Agencies" the additional sum of $979,000,000, to be available for the purposes of providing assistance to the independent states of the former Soviet Union.
(b) Authorization of transfer of funds
The Secretary of Defense may, to the extent provided in appropriations Acts, transfer from the account "Operation and Maintenance, Defense Agencies" for fiscal year 1993 a sum not to exceed the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization in subsection (a) to—
(1) other accounts of the Department of Defense for the purpose of providing assistance to the independent states of the former Soviet Union; or
(2) appropriations available to the Department of State and other agencies of the United States Government for the purpose of providing assistance to the independent states of the former Soviet Union for programs that the President determines will increase the national security of the United States.
(c) Administrative provisions
(1) Amounts transferred under subsection (b) shall be available subject to the same terms and conditions as the appropriations to which transferred.
(2) The authority to make transfers pursuant to this section is in addition to any other transfer authority of the Department of Defense.
(d) Coordination of programs
The President shall coordinate the programs described in subsection (b) with those authorized in the other provisions of this chapter and in the provisions of the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–511) so as to optimize the contribution such programs make to the national interests of the United States.
The Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992, referred to in subsec. (d), is Pub. L. 102–511, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3320, as amended. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5801 of this title and Tables.
§5959. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(8)(C), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607
Section, Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title XIII, §1308], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-341; Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title XIII, §§1307, 1309, Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1256, 1257; Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title XIII, §1304(a), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2672; Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title X, §1045(c)(2), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1613; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title XIII, §1305, Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3474; Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XIII, §1306(b), Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2560; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title X, §1075(d)(20), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4374; Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title X, §1066(d), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1589, required reports on activities and assistance under cooperative threat reduction programs.
§§5960, 5961. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(11), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607
Section 5960, Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title XIII, §1303, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1659, related to limitation on use of funds for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs until certain permits obtained.
Section 5961, Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title XIII, §1305, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1660, related to requirement to appoint on-site managers before obligating any Cooperative Threat Reduction funds for certain projects.
§5961a. Requirement for on-site managers
(a) On-site manager requirement
Before obligating any defense nuclear nonproliferation funds for a project described in subsection (b), the Secretary of Energy shall appoint one on-site manager for that project. The manager shall be appointed from among employees of the Federal Government.
(b) Projects covered
Subsection (a) applies to a project—
(1) to be located in a state of the former Soviet Union;
(2) which involves dismantlement, destruction, or storage facilities, or construction of a facility; and
(3) with respect to which the total contribution by the Department of Energy is expected to exceed $50,000,000.
(c) Duties of on-site manager
The on-site manager appointed under subsection (a) shall—
(1) develop, in cooperation with representatives from governments of countries participating in the project, a list of those steps or activities critical to achieving the project's disarmament or nonproliferation goals;
(2) establish a schedule for completing those steps or activities;
(3) meet with all participants to seek assurances that those steps or activities are being completed on schedule; and
(4) suspend United States participation in a project when a non-United States participant fails to complete a scheduled step or activity on time, unless directed by the Secretary of Energy to resume United States participation.
(d) Authority to manage more than one project
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an employee of the Federal Government may serve as on-site manager for more than one project, including projects at different locations.
(2) If such an employee serves as on-site manager for more than one project in a fiscal year, the total cost of the projects for that fiscal year may not exceed $150,000,000.
(e) Steps or activities
Steps or activities referred to in subsection (c)(1) are those activities that, if not completed, will prevent a project from achieving its disarmament or nonproliferation goals, including, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Identification and acquisition of permits (as defined in subsection (g)).
(2) Verification that the items, substances, or capabilities to be dismantled, secured, or otherwise modified are available for dismantlement, securing, or modification.
(3) Timely provision of financial, personnel, management, transportation, and other resources.
(f) Notification to Congress
In any case in which the Secretary of Energy directs an on-site manager to resume United States participation in a project under subsection (c)(4), the Secretary shall concurrently notify Congress of such direction.
(g) Permit defined
In this section, the term "permit" means any local or national permit for development, general construction, environmental, land use, or other purposes that is required in the state of the former Soviet Union in which the project is being or is proposed to be carried out.
(h) Effective date
This section shall take effect six months after November 24, 2003.
(Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3125, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1748.)
Section was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, and not as part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 which comprises this chapter.
Section 5962, Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title XIII, §1307, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1661, related to annual certifications on use of facilities being constructed for Cooperative Threat Reduction projects or activities.
Section 5963, Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title XIII, §1308, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1662; Pub. L. 110–53, title XVIII, §1811(4), Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 493; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title XIII, §1305, Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 413, related to authority to use Cooperative Threat Reduction funds outside the former Soviet Union.
§§5964, 5965. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(12)(B), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607
Section 5964, Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XIII, §1304, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2558, related to metrics for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
Section 5965, Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XIII, §1305, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2559, related to Cooperative Threat Reduction Program authority for urgent threat reduction activities.


A lot of different types of spice racks are as follows: Tiered Rack: The rack with number of display units for the spice jars and containers to be inserted is not only handy to use; yet also adds up to the clutter free and organised look of your kitchen. Available in real wood, stainless steel or acrylic, tiered spice rack can be placed in the kitchen countertop or can also be wall mounted to create vertical jump storage for your collection of herbs. Extremely convenient and probably the most popular options to prepare spice jars, tiered spice racks can be a perfect conjunction with any kitchen- modern or perhaps traditional.
Victoriajacksonshow - Kids' bean bag chairs etsy. You've searched for kids' bean bag chairs! etsy has thousands of unique options to choose from, like handmade goods, vintage finds, and one of a kind gifts our global marketplace of sellers can help you find extraordinary items at any price range. Kids bean bag chairs etsy. You searched for: kids bean bag chairs! etsy is the home to thousands of handmade, vintage, and one of a kind products and gifts related to your search no matter what you're looking for or where you are in the world, our global marketplace of sellers can help you find unique and affordable options let's get started!. Bean bag chair etsy. You searched for: bean bag chair! etsy is the home to thousands of handmade, vintage, and one of a kind products and gifts related to your search no matter what you're looking for or where you are in the world, our global marketplace of sellers can help you find unique and affordable options let's get started!. Kids' bean bag chairs etsy no. You've searched for kids' bean bag chairs! etsy has thousands of unique options to choose from, like handmade goods, vintage finds, and one of a kind gifts our global marketplace of sellers can help you find extraordinary items at any price range. Kids bean bag etsy. You searched for: kids bean bag! etsy is the home to thousands of handmade, vintage, and one of a kind products and gifts related to your search no matter what you're looking for or where you are in the world, our global marketplace of sellers can help you find unique and affordable options let's get started!. Bean bag chair kids etsy. You searched for: bean bag chair kids! etsy is the home to thousands of handmade, vintage, and one of a kind products and gifts related to your search no matter what you're looking for or where you are in the world, our global marketplace of sellers can help you find unique and affordable options let's get started!. Bean bag chairs etsy. You searched for: bean bag chairs! etsy is the home to thousands of handmade, vintage, and one of a kind products and gifts related to your search no matter what you're looking for or where you are in the world, our global marketplace of sellers can help you find unique and affordable options let's get started!. Giant knit bean bags on etsy are as cozy as giant knit. Here to dethrone giant knitted blankets are giant knitted bean bags the chairs, which instantly make any room cozier, are extremely popular on etsy from seller giemarga, who makes everything by hand. Big joe bean bag chairs etsy director chair covers. Big joe bean bag chairs etsy director chair covers decorate metal folding chairs wicker kitchen chairs with arms fishing chair tackle box kids wooden table and chair set jumbo rocking chair cushions padded beach chair rolled arm chair vintage high chair ice fishing chairs manufacturers. Gaming chair rocker etsy high cover bean bag kids sleek. Gaming chair rocker etsy high chair cover bean bag chair kids sleek office chair brown leather office chairs uk zeta desk chair stacking dining chairs uk mid century modern chair and ottoman chair designs for living room colorful chaise lounge chairs table and chair rentals near me.