This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

60537

Vol. 69, No. 196

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 301 

[Docket No. 04–032–2] 

Japanese Beetle; Domestic Quarantine 

and Regulations

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as 

final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final 

rule, without change, an interim rule 

that amended the Japanese beetle 

regulations to add the State of Arkansas 

to the list of quarantined States. The 

interim rule was necessary to prevent 

the artificial spread of Japanese beetle 

into noninfested areas of the United 

States.

DATES: The interim rule became 

effective on July 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

S. Anwar Rizvi, Program Manager, 

Invasive Species and Pest Management, 

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–

4313.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

The Japanese beetle (Popillia 

japonica) feeds on fruits, vegetables, 

and ornamental plants and is capable of 

causing damage to over 300 potential 

hosts. The Japanese beetle quarantine 

and regulations, contained in 7 CFR 

301.48 through 301.48–8 (referred to 

below as the regulations), quarantine the 

States of Alabama, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, 

West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the 

District of Columbia and restrict the 

interstate movement of aircraft from 

regulated airports in these States in 

order to prevent the artificial spread of 

the Japanese beetle to noninfested States 

where the beetle could become 

established (referred to below as 

protected States). The list of 

quarantined States, as well as the list of 

protected States, can be found in 

§ 301.48. 

In an interim rule effective and 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 6, 2004 (69 FR 40533–40534, 

Docket No. 04–032–1), we amended the 

Japanese beetle regulations by adding 

Arkansas to the list of quarantined 

States in § 301.48. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before 

September 7, 2004. We did not receive 

any comments. Therefore, for the 

reasons given in the interim rule, we are 

adopting the interim rule as a final rule. 

This action also affirms the 

information contained in the interim 

rule concerning Executive Order 12866 

and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Further, for this action, the Office of 

Management and Budget has waived its 

review under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 

Agricultural commodities, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation.

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE 

NOTICES

■ Accordingly, we are adopting as a final 

rule, without change, the interim rule 

that amended 7 CFR part 301 and that 

was published at 69 FR 40533–40534 on 

July 6, 2004.

Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of 

October 2004. 

Elizabeth E. Gaston, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 04–22791 Filed 10–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service 

7 CFR Part 1730 

RIN 0572–AB92 

Electric System Emergency 

Restoration Plan

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS), an agency delivering the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Rural 

Development Utilities Programs, is 

amending its regulations on Electric 

System Operations and Maintenance to 

require electric program distribution, 

generation and transmission borrowers 

to expand a currently established 

Emergency Restoration Plan (ERP), or, if 

no ERP is currently established, to 

create an ERP. The ERP shall detail how 

the borrower will restore its system in 

the event of a system-wide outage 

resulting from a major natural or 

manmade disaster or other causes. The 

ERP shall include preventative 

measures and procedures for emergency 

recovery from physical and cyber 

attacks to the borrower’s electric 

systems and core businesses, and shall 

also address Homeland Security 

concerns. This additional requirement is 

not entirely new to borrowers as RUS 

has recommended similar ‘‘plans’’ in 

the past. RUS Bulletin 1730–1, ‘‘Electric 

System Operation and Maintenance 

(O&M),’’ provides language addressing 

the security of RUS borrowers’ electric 

systems.

DATES: This rule is effective October 12, 

2004. Borrowers of RUS loan funds will 

have until July 12, 2005 to certify that 

they have performed a Vulnerability and 

Risk Assessment, and January 12, 2006 

to certify that they have an ERP. The 

completion of the first Exercise of the 

ERP must occur on or before January 12, 

2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

B. Pavek, Chief, Distribution Branch, 

Rural Utilities Service, Electric Program, 

Room 1256 South Building, Stop 1569, 

1400 Independence Ave., SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–1569, 

Telephone: 202–720–5082, Fax: 202–

720–7491, E-mail: 

John.Pavek@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

60538 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

Executive Order 12372 

This final rule is excluded from the 

scope of Executive Order 12372, 

Intergovernmental Consultation, which 

may require consultation with State and 

local officials. See the final rule-related 

notice titled ‘‘Department Programs and 

Activities Excluded from Executive 

Order 12372’’ (50 FR 47034) advising 

that rural electrification loans and loan 

guarantees are excluded from the scope 

of Executive Order 12372. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. RUS has determined 

that this final rule meets the applicable 

standards provided in section 3 of the 

Executive Order. In addition, all state 

and local laws and regulations that are 

in conflict with this rule will be 

preempted, no retroactive effect will be 

given to this rule, and, in accordance 

with section 212(e) of the Department of 

Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 

(7 U.S.C. 6912 (e)), administrative 

appeals procedures, if any are required, 

must be exhausted before an action 

against the Department or its agencies 

may be initiated. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The policies contained in this rule do 

not have any substantial direct effect on 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Nor does this rule 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on State and local governments. 

Therefore, consultation with states is 

not required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

It has been determined that the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act is not 

applicable to this rule since RUS is not 

required by 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. or any 

other provision of law to publish a 

notice of final rulemaking with respect 

to the subject matter of this rule. 

Information Collection and 

Bookkeeping Requirements 

In accordance with Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), RUS invites comments on 

this information collection for which 

RUS intends to request approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). These requirements have been 

approved by emergency clearance under 

OMB Control Number 0572–0140. 

Comments on this notice must be 

received by December 13, 2004. 

Comments are invited on (a) whether 

the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of burden including 

the validity of the methodology and 

assumption used; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques on 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments may be sent to: Dawn 

Wolfgang, Program Development and 

Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 

5166–South, STOP 1522, Washington, 

DC 20250–1522. Fax: (202) 720–4120. Email: dawn.wolfgang@usda.gov.

Title: Electric System Emergency 

Restoration Plan. 

OMB Control Number: 0572–0140. 

Type of Request: Request for approval 

of a currently approved information 

collection. 

Abstract: Electric power systems have 

been identified in Presidential Decision 

Directive 63 (PDD–63), May 1998, as 

one of the critical infrastructures of the 

United States. The term ‘‘critical 

infrastructure’’ is defined in section 

1016(e) of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 

(42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)) as ‘‘systems and 

assets, whether physical or virtual, so 

vital to the United States that the 

incapacity or destruction of such 

systems and assets would have a 

debilitating impact on security, national 

economic security, national public 

health or safety, or any combination of 

those matters.’’ Damage to or loss of 

critical or significant parts of the U.S. 

electric power system can cause 

enormous damage to the environment, 

loss of life and economic loss and can 

affect the national security of the United 

States. Such damage or loss can be 

caused by acts of nature or human acts, 

ranging from an accident to an act of 

terrorism. Of particular concern are 

physical and cyber threats from 

terrorists. Protecting America’s critical 

infrastructure is the shared 

responsibility of Federal, State, and 

local government in active partnership 

with the private sector. Homeland 

Security Presidential Directive 7 

(HSPD–7), December 2003, established a 

national policy for Federal departments 

and agencies to identify and prioritize 

United States critical infrastructure and 

key resources and to protect them from 

terrorist attacks. America’s open and 

technologically complex society 

includes a wide array of critical 

infrastructure and key resources that are 

potential terrorist targets. The majority 

of these are owned and operated by the 

private sector and State or local 

governments. These critical 

infrastructures and key resources are 

both physical and cyber-based and span 

all sectors of the economy. A substantial 

portion of the electric infrastructure of 

the United States resides in, and is 

maintained by, rural America. To ensure 

that the electric infrastructure in rural 

America is adequately protected, RUS is 

instituting the requirement that all 

current electric borrowers enhance an 

existing ERP or, if none exists, develop 

and maintain an ERP. 

Title 7 CFR Part 1730, Electric System 

and Maintenance, establishes a 

requirement for electric program 

distribution, generation, and 

transmission borrowers to develop an 

ERP or expand an existing ERP and to 

provide RUS with a written certification 

that they have an ERP based upon a 

VRA.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 30 minutes per 

response. 

Respondents: Not for profit. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

676. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 338 hours. 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Dawn Wolfgang, 

Program Development and Regulatory 

Analysis, Rural Utilities Service at (202) 

720–0812. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This final rule contains no Federal 

mandates under the regulatory 

provision of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. Chapter 

25) pursuant to exceptions therein for 

State, local, and tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Certification 

The Administrator of RUS has 

determined that this final rule will not 

significantly affect the quality of the

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 60539

human environment as defined by the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Therefore, 

this action does not require an 

environmental impact statement or 

assessment. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The program described by this final 

rule is listed in the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance Programs under 

No. 10.850, Rural Electrification Loans 

and Loan Guarantees. This catalog is 

available on a subscription basis from 

the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC 20402–9325, telephone 

number (202) 512-1800. 

Background 

The term ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ is 

defined in section 1016(e) of the USA 

Patriot Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)) 

as ‘‘systems and assets, whether 

physical or virtual, so vital to the United 

States that the incapacity or destruction 

of such systems and assets would have 

a debilitating impact on security, 

national economic security, national 

public health or safety, or any 

combination of those matters.’’ Electric 

power systems have been identified in 

Presidential Decision Directive 63 

(PDD–63), May 1998, as one of the 

critical infrastructures of the United 

States. 

The United States electric power 

system (electric power system) consists 

of three distinct components: 

Generation facilities, transmission 

facilities (including bulk transmission 

and subtransmission facilities) and 

distribution facilities. Specific 

definitions of generation, transmission 

and distribution facilities are located in 

7 CFR 1710.2. The other critical 

infrastructures identified in PDD–63 are 

all dependant to some degree upon the 

full and continuous functioning of the 

electric power system. Damage to or loss 

of critical or significant parts of the 

electric power system can cause 

enormous damage to the environment, 

loss of life and economic loss and can 

affect the national security of the United 

States. Such damage or loss to the 

electric power system can be caused by 

acts of nature or human acts, ranging 

from an accident to an act of terrorism. 

Of particular concern are physical and 

cyber threats from terrorists. 

RUS borrowers have always had a 

duty to RUS to maintain their respective 

systems. In performing this duty, a 

borrower furthers the purposes of the 

Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as 

amended (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) while 

also preserving the value of its system 

to serve as collateral for repayment of 

RUS assistance. Generally speaking, the 

scope of this duty is frequently 

measured against prudent utility 

practices. Thus, it is entirely 

appropriate for RUS to expect that its 

borrowers will be aware of and 

following developing standards for 

private sector emergency preparedness 

and business continuity. A voluntary 

standard is emerging within the private 

sector and the requirements of this final 

rule are consistent with that standard. 

The latest evidence of the emerging 

standards in this area may be found on 

page 398 of the Final Report of the 

National Commission on Terrorist 

Attacks upon the United States (the 

‘‘Commission’’) issued on July 22, 2004 

(the ‘‘9/11 Report’’). 

The 9/11 Report notes that the 

Commission asked the American 

National Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) to 

develop a consensus on a ‘‘National 

Standard of Preparedness’’ for the 

private sector. As a result of public 

sessions, ANSI recommended that the 

Commission endorse a voluntary 

National Preparedness Standard based 

on the existing American National 

Standard on Disaster/Emergency 

Management and Business Continuity 

Programs (‘‘NFPA 1600’’). The 

Commission has done so and it has also 

explicitly encouraged the insurance and 

credit rating industries to look closely at 

a company’s compliance with the ANSI 

standard in assessing its insurability 

and creditworthiness. The Commission 

wrote: ‘‘We believe that compliance 

with the standard should define the 

standard of care owed by a company to 

its employees and the public for legal 

purposes.’’

The RUS purpose in referring to these 

recent developments is not to suggest 

that RUS borrowers must comply with 

NFPA 1600. However, RUS does wish to 

call attention to the fact that this final 

rule is being issued at a time when there 

appears to be a widespread recognition 

that emergency preparedness and 

business continuity is ‘‘a cost of doing 

business in the post-9/11 world,’’ and 

thus properly the concern of the rural 

utility sector and of RUS as a major 

provider of financing to this sector. 

A substantial portion of the electric 

infrastructure of the United States is 

located, and maintained by, rural 

America. To ensure that the electric 

infrastructure in rural America is 

adequately protected, and that security 

for RUS electric loans is adequately 

maintained and protected, RUS is 

instituting the requirement that all 

current electric borrowers conduct a 

Vulnerability and Risk Assessment 

(VRA) of their respective systems and 

utilize the results of this assessment to 

enhance an existing ERP or, if none 

exists, develop and maintain an ERP. 

Prior to approving any new RUS electric 

program grant, loan or loan guarantee, 

applicants will have to demonstrate that 

they have an ERP. 

The VRA is utilized to identify 

specific assets and infrastructure owned 

or served by the electric utility, 

determine the criticality and risk level 

associated with such assets and 

infrastructure including a risk versus 

cost analysis, identify threats and 

vulnerabilities, if any, review existing 

mitigation procedures, and assist in the 

development of new and additional 

mitigation procedures, if necessary. The 

ERP will provide written procedures 

detailing response and restoration 

efforts in the event of a major system 

outage resulting from a natural or man 

made disaster. An annual Exercise of 

the ERP will ensure operability and 

employee competency and serve to 

identify and correct deficiencies in the 

existing ERP. This final rule defines 

‘‘Exercise’’ to mean a borrower or 

borrowers’ participation in a tabletop 

execution of, or actual implementation 

of, the ERP to verify the operability of 

the ERP. The Exercise may be 

implemented singly by an individual 

borrower, or by an individual borrower 

as a participant in a multi-party (to 

include utilities, government agencies 

and other participants or combination 

thereof) tabletop execution or actual 

implementation of the ERP. This final 

rule defines ‘‘Tabletop’’ to mean a 

hypothetical emergency response 

scenario in which participants will 

identify the policy, communication, 

resources, data, coordination, and 

organizational elements associated with 

an emergency response. The Exercise 

must, at a minimum, verify:

1. Operability of alert and notification 

systems; 

2. Efficacy of plan; 

3. Employee competency with ERP 

procedures; 

4. Points of contact (POC) of key 

personnel, both internally and 

externally; and 

5. Contact numbers for POCs. 

On March 19, 2004, RUS published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register, at 

69 FR 12989, which proposed to require 

electric program distribution, generation 

and transmission borrowers to expand a 

currently established ERP, or if no ERP 

is currently established, to create an 

ERP in accordance with 7 CFR part 

1730. 

RUS received 13 letters and one email on this proposed rule by the 

comment deadline of May 3, 2004. 

Comments were received from 

Enervision, Inc., Gascosage Electric

60540 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Cooperative, North Dakota Association 

of Rural Electric Cooperatives, the 

National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association, Wheller, Van Sickle & 

Associates, S.C. on behalf of Dairyland 

Power, Alabama Rural Electric 

Association of Cooperatives, 

Association of Electric Cooperatives of 

Virginia, Maryland and Delaware, 

Arkansas Electric Cooperative 

Corporation, Sunflower Electric Power 

Corporation, South Dakota Rural 

Electric Cooperative Association, Carroll 

Electric Membership Corporation, Great 

River Energy, Tri-State Generation & 

Transmission Association, Inc. and the 

Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina, 

Inc. Ninety three percent of the 

respondents supported the revision to 7 

CFR part 1730, which requires electric 

program distribution, generation and 

transmission borrowers to establish and 

annually exercise an ERP. 

One respondent did not support the 

proposed rule. The basis for its 

opposition was that, due to the small 

size of the utility, recordkeeping would 

strain the existing workforce. The 

respondent stated that it has already 

established an Emergency and Disaster 

Plan that effectively details guidelines 

for restoring its system should a disaster 

occur, provides preventative measures 

to preclude such an event and 

incorporates Homeland Security issues. 

RUS believes that, like the respondent 

above, most utilities already have a 

similar plan in place, commonly 

referred to as a storm plan, and that the 

final rule will only require a 

modification of such plans. Borrowers 

will only have to modify their existing 

plan to add those items identified in 

§ 1730.28 that they have not already 

incorporated. There is not a significant 

amount of additional recordkeeping 

required. Section 1730.22, ‘‘Borrower 

Analysis’’ details the requirements for 

records of inspection which includes 

RUS Form 300, ‘‘Review Rating 

Summary,’’ on which a borrower 

indicates that it has an ERP. The selfcertification of completion of a VRA and 

ERP can be completed in simple letter 

form as outlined in § 1730.26(b) of the 

final rule. This self-certification letter 

will be the only document submitted to 

and maintained by RUS with respect to 

the VRA and ERP. 

While the overall comments received 

from the remainder of the respondents 

were generally favorable, there were 

requests for additional clarification on 

the following items: 

1. Timeframe for implementation. 

2. Criteria for identification of critical 

assets (utility critical and National 

critical). 

3. Requirements for self-certification. 

4. Can borrowers collectively develop 

an ERP and exercise such ERP jointly? 

Additionally, there were a few 

specific questions regarding RUS’

relationship with the North American 

Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and 

any possible contradiction to NERC 

requirements or other agencies that have 

a certain degree of responsibility in the 

electric sector such as the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC). There 

were additional suggested requests that 

involved items to be included in a guide 

bulletin to assist RUS borrowers to 

comply with the proposed regulation. 

RUS provided the clarifications 

requested on the timeframe for 

implementation and, as requested, 

extended the timeframe to complete a 

VRA. RUS also provided explicit 

language regarding the basis for 

identification of critical assets or 

infrastructure identified as elements of 

national security, provided detailed 

instructions for self-certification, and 

acknowledges that the ERP may be 

developed jointly by electric utilities. 

Further, RUS acknowledges that the 

annual exercise of an ERP may be 

conducted by a borrower as a 

participant in a multi-party exercise. 

RUS agrees with the comments 

regarding the creation of a guide 

bulletin which shall include a 

discussion of RUS’ relationship with 

NERC. A guide bulletin is being 

developed by RUS and will be made 

available to electric borrowers to assist 

in implementing the requirements of the 

final rule. Nothing in this final rule 

supercedes any requirements imposed 

or dictated by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1730 

Electric power, Loan programs—

energy, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirement, Rural areas.

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, chapter XVII of title 7 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, part 1730, 

is amended to read follows:

PART 1730—ELECTRIC SYSTEM 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1730 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq., 1921 et 

seq., 6941 et seq.

Subpart B—Operations and 

Maintenance Requirements

■ 2. Section 1730.20 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 1730.20 General. 

Each electric program distribution, 

transmission and generation borrower 

(as defined in § 1710.2) shall operate 

and maintain its system in compliance 

with prudent utility practice, in 

compliance with its loan documents, 

and in compliance with all applicable 

laws, regulations and orders, shall 

maintain its systems in good repair, 

working order and condition, and shall 

make all needed repairs, renewals, 

replacements, alterations, additions, 

betterments and improvements, in 

accordance with applicable provisions 

of the borrower’s security instrument. 

Each borrower is responsible for ongoing operations and maintenance 

programs, individually or regionally 

performing a system security 

Vulnerability and Risk Assessment 

(VRA), establishing and maintaining an 

Emergency Restoration Plan (ERP), 

maintaining records of the physical, 

cyber and electrical condition and 

security of its electric system and for the 

quality of services provided to its 

customers. The borrower is also 

responsible for all necessary inspections 

and tests of the component parts of its 

system, and for maintaining records of 

such inspections and tests. Each 

borrower shall budget sufficient 

resources to operate and maintain its 

system and annually exercise its ERP in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this part. An actual manmade or natural 

event on the borrowers system in which 

a borrower utilizes a significant portion 

of its ERP shall count as an annual 

exercise for that calendar year, provided 

that after conclusion of the event, the 

borrower verifies accuracy of the 

emergency points-of-contact (POC) and 

the associated contact numbers as listed 

in their ERP. For portions of the 

borrower’s system that are not operated 

by the borrower, if any, the borrower is 

responsible for ensuring that the 

operator is operating and maintaining 

the system properly in accordance with 

the operating agreement.

■ 3. Section 1730.21 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 

follows:

§ 1730.21 Inspections and tests. 

(a) Each borrower shall conduct all 

necessary inspections and tests of the 

component parts of its electric system, 

annually exercise its ERP, and maintain 

records of such inspections and tests. 

For the purpose of this part, ‘‘Exercise’’

means a borrower’s Tabletop execution 

of, or actual implementation of, the ERP 

to verify the operability of the ERP. 

Such Exercise may be performed singly 

by an individual borrower, or as an 

active participant in a multi-party (to 

include utilities, government agencies 

and other participants or combination 

thereof) Tabletop execution or actual

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 60541

full implementation of the ERP. For the 

purpose of this part, ‘‘Tabletop’’ means 

a hypothetical emergency response 

scenario in which participants will 

identify the policy, communication, 

resources, data, coordination, and 

organizational elements associated with 

an emergency response.

* * * * *

(c) Inspections of facilities must 

include a determination of whether the 

facility complies with the National 

Electrical Safety Code, National 

Electrical Code (as applicable), and 

applicable State or local regulations and 

whether additional security measures 

are considered necessary to reduce the 

vulnerability of those facilities which, if 

damaged or destroyed, would severely 

impact the reliability and security of the 

electric power grid, cause significant 

risk to the safety and health of the 

public and/or impact the ability to 

provide service to consumers over an 

extended period of time. The electric 

power grid, also known as the 

transmission grid, consists of a network 

of electrical lines and related facilities, 

including certain substations, used to 

connect distribution facilities to 

generation facilities, and includes bulk 

transmission and subtransmission 

facilities as defined in § 1710.2 of this 

title. Any serious or life-threatening 

deficiencies shall be promptly repaired, 

disconnected, or isolated in accordance 

with applicable codes or regulations. 

Any other deficiencies found as a result 

of such inspections and tests are to be 

recorded and those records are to be 

maintained until such deficiencies are 

corrected or for the retention period 

required by paragraph (b) of this section, 

whichever is longer.

■ 4. Section 1730.22 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) 

introductory text to read as follow:

§ 1730.22 Borrower analysis.

(a) Each borrower shall periodically 

analyze and document its security, 

operations and maintenance policies, 

practices, and procedures to determine 

if they are appropriate and if they are 

being followed. The records of 

inspections and tests are also to be 

reviewed and analyzed to identify any 

trends which could indicate 

deterioration in the physical or cyber 

condition or the operational 

effectiveness of the system or suggest a 

need for changes in security, operations 

or maintenance policies, practices and 

procedures. For portions of the 

borrower’s system that are not operated 

by the borrower, if any, the borrower’s 

written analysis would also include a 

review of the operator’s performance 

under the operating agreement. 

(b) When a borrower’s security, 

operations and maintenance policies, 

practices, and procedures are to be 

reviewed and evaluated by RUS, the 

borrower shall:

* * * * *

■ 5. Section 1730.26 is amended by:

■ A. Revising the section heading;

■ B. Designating the text as paragraph (a) 

and adding a paragraph heading; and

■ C. Adding a new paragraph (b).

These additions are to read as follows:

§ 1730.26 Certification. 

(a) Engineer’s certification. * * * 

(b) Emergency Restoration Plan 

certification. The borrower’s Manager or 

Chief Executive Officer shall provide 

written certification to RUS stating that 

a VRA has been satisfactorily completed 

that meets the criteria of § 1730.27 (a), 

(b), (c), or (d), as applicable and 

§ 1730.27(e)(1) through (e)(8), and that 

the borrower has an ERP that meets the 

criteria of § 1730.28 (a), (b), (c), or (d), 

as applicable, and § 1730.28 (e), (f), and 

(g). The written certification shall be in 

letter form. Applicants for new RUS 

electric loans, loan guarantees or grants 

shall include the written certification in 

the application package submitted to 

RUS. If the self-certification of an ERP 

and VRA are not received as set forth in 

this section, approval of the loan, loan 

guarantees or grants will not be 

considered until the certifications are 

received by RUS.

■ 5. Sections 1730.27, 1730.28 and 

1730.29 are added to read as follows:

§ 1730.27 Vulnerability and Risk 

Assessment (VRA). 

(a) Each borrower with an approved 

RUS electric program loan as of October 

12, 2004 shall perform an initial VRA of 

its electric system no later than July 12, 

2005. Additional or periodic VRA’s may 

be necessary if significant changes occur 

in the borrower’s system, and records of 

such additional assessments shall be 

maintained by the borrower. 

(b) Each applicant that has submitted 

an application for an RUS electric 

program loan or grant prior to October 

12, 2004, but whose application has not 

been approved by RUS by such date, 

shall perform an initial VRA of its 

electric system in accordance with 

§ 1730.27(a). 

(c) Each applicant that submits an 

application for an RUS electric program 

loan or grant between October 12, 2004 

and July 12, 2005 shall perform an 

initial VRA of its electric system in 

accordance with § 1730.27(a). 

(d) Each applicant that submits an 

application for an RUS electric program 

loan or grant on or after July 12, 2005 

shall include with its application 

package a letter certification that such 

applicant has performed an initial VRA 

of its electric system. Additional or 

periodic VRA’s may be necessary if 

significant changes occur in the 

borrower’s system, and records of such 

additional assessments shall be 

maintained by the borrower. 

(e) The VRA shall include identifying: 

(1) Critical assets or facilities 

considered necessary for the reliability 

and security of the electric power grid 

as described in § 1730.21(c); 

(2) Facilities that if damaged or 

destroyed would cause significant risk 

to the safety and health of the public; 

(3) Critical assets or infrastructure 

owned or served by the borrower’s 

electric system that are determined, 

identified and communicated as 

elements of national security by the 

consumer, State or Federal government; 

(4) External system impacts 

(interdependency) with loss of 

identified system components; 

(5) Threats to facilities and assets 

identified in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), 

(e)(3), and (e)(4) of this section; 

(6) Criticality and risk level of the 

borrower’s system; 

(7) Critical asset components and 

elements unique to the RUS borrower’s 

system; and 

(8) Other threats, if any, identified by 

an individual borrower.

§ 1730.28 Emergency Restoration Plan 

(ERP). 

(a) Each borrower with an approved 

RUS electric program loan as of October 

12, 2004 shall have a written ERP no 

later than January 12, 2006. The ERP 

should be developed by the borrower 

individually or in conjunction with 

other electric utilities (not all having to 

be RUS borrowers) through the 

borrower’s unique knowledge of its 

system, prudent utility practices (which 

includes development of an ERP) and 

the borrower’s completed VRA. If a joint 

electric utility ERP is developed, each 

RUS borrower shall prepare an 

addendum to meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) of this section 

as it relates to its system. 

(b) Each applicant that has submitted 

an application for an RUS electric 

program loan or grant prior to October 

12, 2004, but whose application has not 

been approved by RUS by such date, 

shall have a written ERP in accordance 

with § 1730.28(a). 

(c) Each applicant that submits an 

application for an RUS electric program 

loan or grant between October 12, 2004 

and January 12, 2006, shall have a 

written ERP in accordance with 

§ 1730.28(a).

60542 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

(d) Each applicant that submits an 

application for an RUS electric program 

loan or grant on or after January 12, 

2006 shall include with its application 

package a letter certification that such 

applicant has a written ERP. 

(e) The ERP shall include: 

(1) A list of key contact emergency 

telephone numbers (emergency 

agencies, borrower management and 

other key personnel, contractors and 

equipment suppliers, other utilities, and 

others that might need to be reached in 

an emergency); 

(2) A list of key utility management 

and other personnel and identification 

of a chain of command and delegation 

of authority and responsibility during 

an emergency; 

(3) Procedures for recovery from loss 

of power to the headquarters, key 

offices, and/or operation center 

facilities; 

(4) A Business Continuity Section 

describing a plan to maintain or reestablish business operations following 

an event which disrupts business 

systems (computer, financial, and other 

business systems); and 

(5) Other items, if any, identified by 

the borrower as essential for inclusion 

in the ERP. 

(f) The ERP must be approved and 

signed by the borrower’s Manager or 

Chief Executive Officer, and approved 

by the borrower’s Board of Directors. 

(g) Copies of the most recent approved 

ERP must be made readily available to 

key personnel at all times. 

(h) The ERP shall be Exercised at least 

annually to ensure operability and 

employee familiarity. Completion of the 

first exercise of the ERP must occur on 

or before January 12, 2007. 

(i) If modifications are made to an 

existing ERP: 

(1) The modified ERP must be 

prepared in compliance with the 

provisions of paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) 

of this section; and 

(2) Additional Exercises may be 

necessary to maintain employee 

operability and familiarity. 

(j) Each borrower shall maintain 

records of such Exercises.

§ 1730.29 Grants and Grantees. 

For the purposes of this part, the 

terms ‘‘borrower’’ shall include 

recipients of RUS electric program 

grants, and ‘‘applicant’’ shall include 

applicants for such grants. References to 

‘‘security documents’’ shall, with 

respect to recipients of RUS electric 

program grants, include grant 

agreements and other grant-related 

documents.

Dated: September 24, 2004. 

Hilda Gay Legg, 

Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.

[FR Doc. 04–22779 Filed 10–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 52 

[Docket No. 98–123–7] 

RIN 0579–AB10 

Pseudorabies in Swine; Payment of 

Indemnity

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rules as 

final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final 

rule, without change, two interim rules 

that amended the animal health 

regulations. The first interim rule 

established regulations to provide for 

the payment of indemnity for the 

voluntary depopulation of herds of 

swine known to be infected with 

pseudorabies, and the second interim 

rule amended the regulations to provide 

that the indemnity payment will be 

equal to the difference between the net 

salvage received and the fair market 

value of the swine destroyed. The 

second interim rule also provided for 

the payment of indemnity for breeding 

sows destroyed because of 

pseudorabies. The interim rules allowed 

for the payment of indemnity from 

accelerated pseudorabies eradication 

program funds for swine destroyed 

because of pseudorabies and were 

necessary to further pseudorabies 

eradication efforts and to protect swine 

not infected with pseudorabies from the 

disease.

DATES: The interim rules became 

effective January 12, 1999, and April 12, 

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Adam Grow, Senior Staff Veterinarian, 

Swine Health and Disease Programs, 

Eradication and Surveillance Team, 

National Center for Animal Health 

Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road 

Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; 

(301) 734–3752.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In an interim rule effective January 

12, 1999, and published in the Federal 

Register on January 15, 1999 (64 FR 

2545–2550, Docket No. 98–123–2), we 

established regulations in 9 CFR part 52 

to provide for the payment of indemnity 

by the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) for the 

voluntary depopulation of herds of 

swine known to be infected with 

pseudorabies. That interim rule, which 

was intended to encourage the 

depopulation of infected herds, was 

necessary to accelerate pseudorabies 

eradication efforts and to protect swine 

not infected with pseudorabies from the 

disease. 

We solicited comments concerning 

the interim rule for 60 days ending 

March 16, 1999. In a technical 

amendment published on March 17, 

1999 (64 FR 13064–13065, Docket No. 

98–123–3), we extended that comment 

period by an additional 30 days. We 

received two comments by the April 16, 

1999, close of the extended comment 

period. They were from a trade 

organization and a U.S. veterinary 

medical association. The comments are 

discussed below. 

One commenter requested that APHIS 

consider amending the regulations to 

require that premises depopulated of 

swine because of pseudorabies not be 

restocked for at least 30 days following 

cleaning and disinfecting, or until an 

appropriate length of time has passed as 

determined by a pseudorabies 

epidemiologist. 

In response to that comment, we 

published the March 17, 1999, technical 

amendment mentioned above to clarify 

the provisions contained in the interim 

rule regarding the waiting period that 

must be observed before restocking 

premises depopulated because of 

pseudorabies. In that technical 

amendment, we amended the 

regulations in part 52 to provide that 

premises that have been depopulated 

because of pseudorabies may be 

restocked with swine 30 days following 

an approved cleaning and disinfection, 

unless an official pseudorabies 

epidemiologist determines that a shorter 

or longer period of time is adequate or 

necessary to protect new animals 

against infection. Because the March 

1999 technical amendment addressed 

the commenter’s concern, no further 

response to that comment is necessary 

in this document. 

Both commenters raised concerns that 

fell outside of the scope of the January 

1999 interim rule. One commenter 

recommended that APHIS increase 

surveillance to ensure detection of 

infected animals and requested that 

APHIS make available Federal funding 

for vaccines when State funding proves 

inadequate. The second commenter 

urged APHIS to increase the speed at