[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3433-3442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01247]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM17-13-000]


Supply Chain Risk Management Reliability Standards

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes 
to approve supply chain risk management Reliability Standards CIP-013-1 
(Cyber Security--Supply Chain Risk Management), CIP-005-6 (Cyber 
Security--Electronic Security Perimeter(s)) and CIP-010-3 (Cyber 
Security--Configuration Change Management and Vulnerability

[[Page 3434]]

Assessments). The North American Electric Reliability Corporation 
(NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization, 
submitted the proposed Reliability Standards for Commission approval in 
response to a Commission directive. In addition, the Commission 
proposes that NERC develop and submit certain modifications to the 
supply chain risk management Reliability Standards.

DATES: Comments are due March 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the 
following ways:
    <bullet> Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents 
created electronically using word processing software should be filed 
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned 
format.
    <bullet> Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically 
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment 
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Simon Slobodnik (Technical Information), Office of Electric 
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6707, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#14677d797b7a3a67787b767b707a7d7f54727166773a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abd8c2c6c4c585d8c7c4c9c4cfc5c2c0ebcdced9c885ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a>.
Kevin Ryan (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426, (202) 502-6840, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a717f6c73743468637b745a7c7f6879347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cba0aebda2a5e5b9b2aaa58badaeb9a8e5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    1. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ 
the Commission proposes to approve supply chain risk management 
Reliability Standards CIP-013-1 (Cyber Security--Supply Chain Risk 
Management), CIP-005-6 (Cyber Security--Electronic Security 
Perimeter(s)) and CIP-010-3 (Cyber Security--Configuration Change 
Management and Vulnerability Assessments). The North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric 
Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted the proposed Reliability 
Standards for Commission approval in response to a Commission directive 
in Order No. 829.\2\ The proposed Reliability Standards are intended to 
augment the currently-effective CIP Reliability Standards to mitigate 
cybersecurity risks associated with the supply chain for BES Cyber 
Systems.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
    \2\ Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability 
Standards, Order No. 829, 156 FERC ] 61,050, at P 43 (2016).
    \3\ BES Cyber System is defined as ``[o]ne or more BES Cyber 
Assets logically grouped by a responsible entity to perform one or 
more reliability tasks for a functional entity.'' Glossary of Terms 
Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary), http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf. The acronym BES refers to 
the bulk electric system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. As the Commission previously recognized, the global supply chain 
provides the opportunity for significant benefits to customers, 
including low cost, interoperability, rapid innovation, a variety of 
product features and choice.\4\ However, the global supply chain also 
enables opportunities for adversaries to directly or indirectly affect 
the management or operations of companies that may result in risks to 
end users. Supply chain risks may include the insertion of 
counterfeits, unauthorized production, tampering, theft, or insertion 
of malicious software, as well as poor manufacturing and development 
practices. We propose to determine that the supply chain risk 
management Reliability Standards submitted by NERC constitute 
substantial progress in addressing the supply chain cyber security 
risks identified by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability 
Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 43354 (July, 22, 
2015), 152 FERC ] 61,054, at PP 61-62 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission also proposes to approve the proposed Reliability 
Standards' associated violation risk factors and violation severity 
levels. With respect to the proposed Reliability Standards' 
implementation plan and effective date, the Commission proposes to 
reduce the implementation period from the first day of the first 
calendar quarter that is 18 months following the effective date of a 
Commission order approving the proposed Reliability Standards, as 
proposed by NERC, to the first day of the first calendar quarter that 
is 12 months following the effective date of a Commission order.
    4. While the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed 
Reliability Standards address most aspects of the Commission's 
directive in Order No. 829, there remains a significant cyber security 
risk associated with the supply chain for BES Cyber Systems because the 
proposed Reliability Standards exclude Electronic Access Control and 
Monitoring Systems (EACMS),\5\ Physical Access Control Systems 
(PACS),\6\ and Protected Cyber Assets (PCAs),\7\ with the exception of 
the modifications in proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6, which 
apply to PCAs. To address this gap, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of 
the FPA,\8\ the Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop 
modifications to the CIP Reliability Standards to include EACMS 
associated with medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems within the 
scope of the supply chain risk management Reliability Standards.\9\ In 
addition, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to evaluate the cyber 
security supply chain risks presented by PACS and PCAs in the study of 
cyber security supply chain risks requested by the NERC Board of 
Trustees (BOT) in its resolutions of August 10, 2017.\10\ The 
Commission further proposes to direct NERC to file the BOT-requested 
study's interim and final reports with the Commission upon their 
completion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EACMS are defined as ``Cyber Assets that perform electronic 
access control or electronic access monitoring of the Electronic 
Security Perimeter(s) or BES Cyber Systems. This includes 
Intermediate Systems.'' NERC Glossary. Reliability Standard CIP-002-
5.1a (Cyber Security--BES Cyber System Categorization) states that 
examples of EACMS include ``Electronic Access Points, Intermediate 
Systems, authentication servers (e.g., RADIUS servers, Active 
Directory servers, Certificate Authorities), security event 
monitoring systems, and intrusion detection systems.'' Reliability 
Standard CIP-002-5.1a (Cyber Security--BES Cyber System 
Categorization) Section A.6 at 6.
    \6\ PACS are defined as ``Cyber Assets that control, alert, or 
log access to the Physical Security Perimeter(s), exclusive of 
locally mounted hardware or devices at the Physical Security 
Perimeter such as motion sensors, electronic lock control 
mechanisms, and badge readers.'' NERC Glossary. Reliability Standard 
CIP-002-5.1a states that examples include ``authentication servers, 
card systems, and badge control systems.'' Id.
    \7\ PCAs are defined as ``[o]ne or more Cyber Assets connected 
using a routable protocol within or on an Electronic Security 
Perimeter that is not part of the highest impact BES Cyber System 
within the same Electronic Security Perimeter. The impact rating of 
Protected Cyber Assets is equal to the highest rated BES Cyber 
System in the same [Electronic Security Perimeter].'' NERC Glossary. 
Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a states that examples include, to 
the extent they are within the Electronic Security Perimeter, ``file 
servers, ftp servers, time servers, LAN switches, networked 
printers, digital fault recorders, and emission monitoring 
systems.'' Id.
    \8\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5).
    \9\ Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a (Cyber Security System 
Categorization) provides a ``tiered'' approach to cybersecurity 
requirements, based on classifications of high, medium and low 
impact BES Cyber Systems.
    \10\ Proposed Additional Resolutions for Agenda Item 9.a: Cyber 
Security--Supply Chain Risk Management--CIP-005-6, CIP-010-3, and 
CIP-013-1 (August 10, 2017), http://www.nerc.com/gov/bot/Agenda%20highlights%20and%20Mintues%202013/Proposed%20Resolutions%20re%20Supply%20Chain%20Follow-Up%20v2.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3435]]

I. Background

A. Section 215 and Mandatory Reliability Standards

    5. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to 
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to 
Commission review and approval. Reliability Standards may be enforced 
by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission 
independently.\11\ Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission 
established a process to select and certify an ERO,\12\ and 
subsequently certified NERC.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e).
    \12\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability 
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and 
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC 
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC 
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \13\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), 
aff'd sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Order No. 829

    6. In Order No. 829, the Commission directed NERC to develop a new 
or modified Reliability Standard that addresses supply chain risk 
management for industrial control system hardware, software and 
computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system 
operations.\14\ Specifically, the Commission directed NERC to develop a 
forward-looking, objective-based Reliability Standard that would 
require responsible entities to develop and implement a plan with 
supply chain management security controls focused on four security 
objectives: (1) Software integrity and authenticity; (2) vendor remote 
access; (3) information system planning; and (4) vendor risk management 
and procurement controls.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Order No. 829, 156 FERC ] 61,050 at P 43.
    \15\ Id. P 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Commission explained that the first objective, verification 
of software integrity and authenticity, is intended to reduce the 
likelihood that an attacker could exploit legitimate vendor patch 
management processes to deliver compromised software updates or patches 
to a BES Cyber System.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. P 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. With respect to the second objective, vendor remote access, the 
Commission stated that the objective is intended to address the threat 
that vendor credentials could be stolen and used to access a BES Cyber 
System without the responsible entity's knowledge, as well as the 
threat that a compromise at a trusted vendor could traverse over an 
unmonitored connection into a responsible entity's BES Cyber 
System.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. P 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. For the third objective, information system planning, Order No. 
829 indicated that the objective is intended to address the risk that 
responsible entities could unintentionally plan to procure and install 
unsecure equipment or software within their information systems, or 
could unintentionally fail to anticipate security issues that may arise 
due to their network architecture or during technology and vendor 
transitions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. P 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Vendor risk management and procurement controls, the fourth 
objective, the Commission explained, are intended to address the risk 
that responsible entities could enter into contracts with vendors that 
pose significant risks to the responsible entities' information 
systems, as well as the risk that products procured by a responsible 
entity fail to meet minimum security criteria. This objective also 
addresses the risk that a compromised vendor would not provide adequate 
notice and related incident response to responsible entities with whom 
that vendor is connected.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. P 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Order No. 829 stated that while responsible entities should be 
required to develop and implement a plan, the Commission did not 
require NERC to impose any specific controls or ``one-size-fits-all'' 
requirements.\20\ In addition, the Commission stated that NERC's 
response to the Order No. 829 directive should respect the Commission's 
jurisdiction under FPA section 215 by only addressing the obligations 
of responsible entities and not by directly imposing any obligations on 
non-jurisdictional suppliers, vendors or other entities that provide 
products or services to responsible entities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id. P 13.
    \21\ Id. P 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. NERC Petition and Proposed Reliability Standards

    12. On September 26, 2017, NERC submitted for Commission approval 
proposed Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6, and CIP-010-3 and 
their associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, 
implementation plans, and effective dates.\22\ NERC states that the 
purpose of the proposed Reliability Standards is to enhance the 
cybersecurity posture of the electric industry by requiring responsible 
entities to take additional actions to address cybersecurity risks 
associated with the supply chain for BES Cyber Systems. NERC explains 
that the proposed Reliability Standards are designed to augment the 
existing controls required in the currently-effective CIP Reliability 
Standards that help mitigate supply chain risks, providing increased 
attention on minimizing the attack surfaces of information and 
communications technology products and services procured to support 
reliable bulk electric system operations, consistent with Order No. 
829. Each proposed Reliability Standard is summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Proposed Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6 and 
CIP-010-3 are not attached to this notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NOPR). The proposed Reliability Standards are available on the 
Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM17-
13-000 and on the NERC website, www.nerc.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards apply only 
to medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems. NERC explains that the 
goal of the CIP Reliability Standards is to ``focus[ ] industry 
resources on protecting those BES Cyber Systems with heightened risks 
to the [bulk electric system] . . . [and] that the requirements 
applicable to low impact BES Cyber Systems, given their lower risk 
profile, should not be overly burdensome to divert resources from the 
protection of medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems.'' \23\ NERC 
further maintains that the standard drafting team chose to apply the 
proposed Reliability Standards only to medium and high impact BES Cyber 
Systems because the proposed Reliability Standards are ``consistent 
with the type of existing CIP cybersecurity requirements applicable to 
high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems as opposed to those applicable 
to low impact BES Cyber Systems.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NERC Petition at 16-17.
    \24\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. NERC states that the standard drafting team also excluded 
EACMS, PACS, and PCAs from the scope of the proposed Reliability 
Standards, with the exception of the modifications in proposed 
Reliability Standard CIP-005-6, which apply to PCAs. NERC explains that 
although certain requirements in the existing CIP Reliability Standards 
apply to EACMS, PACS, and PCAs due to their association with BES Cyber 
Systems (either by function or location), the standard drafting team 
determined that the proposed supply chain risk management Reliability 
Standards should focus on high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems 
only. NERC states that this determination was based on the conclusion 
that applying the

[[Page 3436]]

proposed Reliability Standards to EACMS, PACS, and PCAs ``would divert 
resources from protecting medium and high BES Cyber Systems.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. NERC maintains that with respect to low impact BES Cyber 
Systems and EACMS, PACS, and PCAs, while not mandatory, NERC expects 
that these assets will likely be subject to responsible entity supply 
chain risk management plans required by proposed Reliability Standard 
CIP-013-1. Specifically, NERC asserts that ``Responsible Entities may 
implement a single process for procuring products and services 
associated with their operational environments.'' \26\ NERC contends 
that ``by requiring that entities implement supply chain cybersecurity 
risk management plans for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems, 
those plans would likely also cover their low impact BES Cyber 
Systems.'' \27\ NERC also claims that responsible entities ``may also 
use the same vendors for procuring PACS, EACMS, and PCAs as they do for 
their high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems such that the same 
security considerations may be addressed for those Cyber Assets.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id. at 19.
    \28\ Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1
    16. NERC states that the focus of proposed Reliability Standard 
CIP-013-1 is on the steps that responsible entities take ``to consider 
and address cybersecurity risks from vendor products and services 
during BES Cyber System planning and procurement.'' \29\ NERC explains 
that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 does not require any 
specific controls or mandate ``one-size-fits-all'' requirements due to 
the differences in needs and characteristics of responsible entities 
and the diversity of bulk electric system environments, technologies, 
and risks. NERC states that the goal of the proposed Reliability 
Standard is ``to help ensure that responsible entities establish 
organizationally-defined processes that integrate a cybersecurity risk 
management framework into the system development lifecycle.'' \30\ NERC 
explains that, among other things, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-
013-1 addresses the risk associated with information system planning, 
as well as vendor risk management and procurement controls, the third 
and fourth objectives outlined in Order No. 829.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id. at 22.
    \30\ Id. at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. NERC states that, consistent with the Commission's FPA section 
215 jurisdiction and Order No. 829, the proposed Reliability Standard 
applies only to responsible entities and does not directly impose 
obligations on suppliers, vendors, or other entities that provide 
products or services to responsible entities. NERC explains that the 
focus of the proposed Reliability Standard is on the steps responsible 
entities take to account for security issues during the planning and 
procurement phase of high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. NERC 
also explains that any resulting obligation that a supplier, vendor, or 
other entity accepts in providing products or services to the 
responsible entity is a contractual matter between the responsible 
entity and third parties, which is outside the scope of the proposed 
Reliability Standard.
    18. NERC explains that the term ``vendor'' is used broadly to refer 
to any person, company or other organization with whom the responsible 
entity, or an affiliate, contracts with to supply BES Cyber Systems and 
related services to the responsible entity. NERC states that the use of 
the term ``vendor,'' however, ``was not intended to bring registered 
entities that provide reliability services to other registered entities 
as part of their functional obligations under NERC's Reliability 
Standards (e.g., a Balancing Authority providing balancing services for 
registered entities in its Balancing Authority Area) within the scope 
of the proposed Reliability Standards.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. NERC maintains that, consistent with Order No. 829, responsible 
entities need not apply their supply chain risk management plans to the 
acquisition of vendor products or services under contracts executed 
prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard CIP-013-1, nor 
would such contracts need to be renegotiated or abrogated to comply 
with the proposed Reliability Standard. In addition, NERC indicates 
that, consistent with the development of a forward looking Reliability 
Standard, if entities are in the middle of procurement activities for 
an applicable product or service at the time of the effective date of 
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1, NERC would not expect entities 
to begin those activities anew to implement their supply chain 
cybersecurity risk management plan to comply with proposed Reliability 
Standard CIP-013-1.
    20. NERC explains that, under Requirement R1 of this Reliability 
Standard, responsible entities would be required to have one or more 
processes to address, as applicable, the following baseline set of 
security concepts in their procurement activities for high and medium 
impact BES Cyber Systems: (1) Vendor security event notification 
processes (Part 1.2.1); (2) coordinated incident response activities 
(Part 1.2.2); (3) vendor personnel termination notification for 
employees with access to remote and onsite systems (Part 1.2.3); (4) 
product/services vulnerability disclosures (Part 1.2.4); (5) 
verification of software integrity and authenticity (Part 1.2.5); and 
(6) coordination of vendor remote access controls (Part 1.2.6). NERC 
states that the intent of Part 1.2 of Requirement R1 is not to require 
that every contract with a vendor include provisions for each of the 
listed items, but to ensure that these security items are an integrated 
part of procurement activities, such as a request for proposal or in 
the contract negotiation process.
    21. NERC states that Requirement R2 mandates that each responsible 
entity implement its supply chain cybersecurity risk management plan. 
NERC explains that the actual terms and conditions of a procurement 
contract and vendor performance under a contract are outside the scope 
of proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1. NERC states that the focus 
of proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 is ``on the processes 
Responsible Entities implement to consider and address cyber security 
risks from vendor products or services during BES Cyber System planning 
and procurement, not on the outcome of those processes. . . .'' \32\ 
NERC maintains that responsible entities must make a business decision 
on whether and how to proceed with an acquisition after weighing the 
risks associated with a vendor or product and making a good faith 
effort to include security controls in any agreement with a vendor, as 
required by proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1. In addition, NERC 
states that vendor performance is outside the scope of the proposed 
Reliability Standards and, while NERC expects responsible entities to 
enforce the provisions of their contracts, ``a Responsible Entity 
should not be held responsible under the proposed Reliability Standard 
for actions (or inactions) of the vendor.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id. at 27.
    \33\ Id. at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. With regard to assessing compliance with proposed Reliability

[[Page 3437]]

Standard CIP-013-1, NERC states that NERC and Regional Entities would 
focus on whether responsible entities: (1) Developed processes 
reasonably designed to (i) identify and assess risks associated with 
vendor products and services in accordance with Part 1.1 and (ii) 
ensure that the security items listed in Part 1.2 are an integrated 
part of procurement activities; and (2) implemented those processes in 
good faith. NERC explains that NERC and Regional Entities will evaluate 
the steps a responsible entity took to assess risks posed by a vendor 
and associated products or services and, based on that risk assessment, 
the steps the entity took to mitigate those risks, including the 
negotiation of security provisions in its agreements with the vendor.
    23. Finally, NERC explains that Requirement R3 requires a 
responsible entity to review and obtain the CIP Senior Manager's 
approval of its supply chain risk management plan at least once every 
15 calendar months in order to ensure that the plan remains up-to-date.
Proposed Modifications in Reliability Standard CIP-005-6
    24. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6 includes two new parts, 
Parts 2.4 and 2.5, to address vendor remote access, which is the second 
objective discussed in Order No. 829. NERC explains that the new parts 
work in tandem with proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1, 
Requirement R1.2.6, which requires responsible entities to address 
Interactive Remote Access and system-to-system remote access when 
procuring industrial control system hardware, software, and computing 
and networking services associated with bulk electric system 
operations. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6, 
Requirement R2.4 requires one or more methods for determining active 
vendor remote access sessions, including Interactive Remote Access and 
system[hyphen]to[hyphen]system remote access. NERC explains that the 
security objective of Requirement R2.4 is to provide awareness of all 
active vendor remote access sessions, both Interactive Remote Access 
and system[hyphen]to[hyphen]system remote access, that are taking place 
on a responsible entity's system.
    25. NERC maintains that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6, 
Requirement R2.5 requires one or more methods to disable active vendor 
remote access, including Interactive Remote Access and 
system[hyphen]to[hyphen]system remote access. NERC explains that the 
security objective of Requirement R2.5 is to provide the ability to 
disable active remote access sessions in the event of a system breach. 
In addition, NERC explains that Requirement R2 was modified to only 
reference Interactive Remote Access where appropriate. Specifically, 
Requirements R2.1, R2.2, and R2.3 apply to Interactive Remote access 
only, while Requirements R2.4 and R2.5 apply both to Interactive Remote 
Access and system-to-system remote access.
Proposed Modifications in Reliability Standard CIP-010-3
    26. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-010-3 includes a new part, 
Part 1.6, to address software integrity and authenticity, the first 
objective addressed in Order No. 829, by requiring the identification 
of the publisher and confirming the integrity of all software and 
patches. NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-010-3, 
Requirement R1.6 requires responsible entities to verify software 
integrity and authenticity in the operational phase, if the software 
source provides a method to do so. Specifically, NERC states that 
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-010-3, Requirement R1.6 requires that 
responsible entities must verify the identity of the software source 
and the integrity of the software obtained by the software sources 
prior to installing software that changes established baseline 
configurations, when methods are available to do so. NERC asserts that 
the security objective of proposed Requirement R1.6 is to ensure that 
the software being installed in the BES Cyber System was not modified 
without the awareness of the software supplier and is not counterfeit. 
NERC contends that these steps help reduce the likelihood that an 
attacker could exploit legitimate vendor patch management processes to 
deliver compromised software updates or patches to a BES Cyber System.
BOT Resolutions
    27. In the petition, NERC states that in conjunction with the 
adoption of the proposed Reliability Standards, on August 10, 2017 the 
BOT adopted resolutions regarding supply chain risk management. In 
particular, the BOT requested that NERC management, in collaboration 
with appropriate NERC technical committees, industry representatives, 
and appropriate experts, including representatives of industry vendors, 
further study the nature and complexity of cyber security supply chain 
risks, including risks associated with low impact assets not currently 
subject to the proposed supply chain risk management Reliability 
Standards. The BOT further requested NERC to develop recommendations 
for follow-up actions that will best address any issues identified. 
Finally, the BOT requested that NERC management provide an interim 
progress report no later than 12 months after the adoption of these 
resolutions and a final report no later than 18 months after the 
adoption of the resolutions. In its petition, NERC states that ``over 
the next 18 months, NERC, working with various stakeholders, will 
continue to assess whether supply chain risks related to low impact BES 
Cyber Systems, PACS, EACMS and PCA necessitate further consideration 
for inclusion in a mandatory Reliability Standard.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. at 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Plan
    28. NERC's proposed implementation plan provides that the proposed 
Reliability Standards become effective on the first day of the first 
calendar quarter that is 18 months after the effective date of a 
Commission order approving them. NERC states that the proposed 
implementation period is designed to afford responsible entities 
sufficient time to develop and implement their supply chain 
cybersecurity risk management plans required under proposed Reliability 
Standard CIP-013-1 and implement the new controls required in proposed 
Reliability Standards CIP-005-6 and CIP-010-3.

II. Discussion

    29. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, the Commission 
proposes to approve supply chain risk management Reliability Standards 
CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6 and CIP-010-3 as just, reasonable, not unduly 
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. The 
proposed Reliability Standards will enhance existing protections for 
bulk electric system reliability by addressing the four objectives set 
forth in Order No. 829: (1) Software integrity and authenticity; (2) 
vendor remote access; (3) information system planning; and (4) vendor 
risk management and procurement controls.
    30. The proposed Reliability Standards address the four objectives 
discussed in Order No. 829. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 
addresses information system planning and vendor risk management and 
procurement controls by requiring that responsible entities develop and 
implement one or more documented supply chain cyber security risk 
management plan(s) for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems.

[[Page 3438]]

The required plans must address, as applicable, a baseline set of six 
security concepts: Vendor security event notification; coordinated 
incident response; vendor personnel termination notification; product/
services vulnerability disclosures; verification of software integrity 
and authenticity; and coordination of vendor remote access controls. 
Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6 addresses vendor remote access 
by creating two new requirements: for determining active vendor remote 
access sessions and for having one or more methods to disable active 
vendor remote access sessions. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-010-3 
addresses software authenticity and integrity by creating a new 
requirement that responsible entities verify the identity of the 
software source and the integrity of the software obtained from the 
software source prior to installing software that changes established 
baseline configurations, when methods are available to do so. Taken 
together, the proposed Reliability Standards constitute substantial 
progress in addressing the supply chain cyber security risks identified 
in Order No. 829.
    31. While the Commission proposes to approve the proposed 
Reliability Standards, certain cyber security risks associated with the 
supply chain for BES Cyber Systems may not be adequately addressed by 
the NERC proposal. In particular, as discussed below, the Commission is 
concerned with the exclusion of EACMS, PACS, and PCAs from the scope of 
the proposed Reliability Standards.\35\ To address this risk, pursuant 
to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission proposes that NERC 
develop modifications to the CIP Reliability Standards to include EACMS 
within the scope of the supply chain risk management Reliability 
Standards. In addition, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to 
evaluate the cyber security supply chain risks presented by PACS and 
PCAs in the cyber security supply chain risks study requested by the 
BOT. The Commission further proposes to direct NERC to file the BOT-
requested study's interim and final reports with the Commission upon 
their completion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ As we noted previously, the only exceptions are the 
modifications in proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6, which 
apply to PCAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Below, we discuss the following issues: (A) Inclusion of EACMS 
in the supply chain risk management Reliability Standards; (B) 
inclusion of PACS and PCAs in the BOT-requested study on cyber security 
supply chain risks and filing of the study's interim and final reports 
with the Commission; and (C) NERC's proposed implementation plan.

A. Inclusion of EACMS in CIP Reliability Standards

    33. The proposed Reliability Standards only apply to medium and 
high impact BES Cyber Systems; they do not apply to low impact BES 
Cyber Systems or Cyber Assets associated with medium and high impact 
BES Cyber Systems (i.e., EACMS, PACS, and PCAs). The BOT-requested 
study on cyber security supply chain risks will examine the risks posed 
by low impact BES Cyber Systems and, as discussed in the following 
section, we believe it is appropriate to await the outcome of that 
study's final report before considering whether low impact BES Cyber 
Systems should be addressed in the supply chain risk management 
Reliability Standards.
    34. With respect to Cyber Assets associated with medium and high 
impact BES Cyber Systems, and EACMS in particular, we propose further 
action than what is requested in the BOT resolutions.\36\ As explained 
in current Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a, BES Cyber Systems have 
associated Cyber Assets, which, if compromised, pose a threat to the 
BES Cyber System by virtue of: (1) Their location within the Electronic 
Security Perimeter (i.e., PCAs), or (2) the security control function 
they perform (i.e., EACMS and PACS).\37\ EACMS support BES Cyber 
Systems and are part of the network and security architecture that 
allow BES Cyber Systems to work as intended by performing electronic 
access control or electronic access monitoring of the Electronic 
Security Perimeter (ESP) or BES Cyber Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ We address PACS and PCAs in the following section.
    \37\ Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a (Cyber Security--BES 
Cyber System Categorization), Background at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. Since EACMS support and enable BES Cyber System operation, 
misoperation and unavailability of EACMS that support a given BES Cyber 
System could also contribute to misoperation of a BES Cyber System or 
render it unavailable, which could adversely affect bulk electric 
system reliability. EACMS control electronic access, including 
interactive remote access, into the ESP that protects high and medium 
impact BES Cyber Systems. One function of electronic access control is 
to prevent malware or malicious actors from gaining access to the BES 
Cyber Systems and PCAs within the ESP. Once an EACMS is compromised, 
the attacker may gain control of the BES Cyber System or PCA. An 
attacker does not need physical access to the facility housing a BES 
Cyber System in order to gain access to a BES Cyber System or PCA via 
an EACMS compromise. By contrast, compromise of PACS, which could 
potentially grant an attacker physical access to a BES Cyber System, 
requires physical access. Further, PCAs typically become vulnerable to 
remote compromise once EACMS have been compromised. Therefore, EACMS 
represent the most likely route an attacker would take to access a BES 
Cyber System or PCA within an ESP.
    36. Currently-effective Reliability Standard CIP-010-2 applies to 
EACMS and the modifications proposed in Reliability Standard CIP-010-3 
maintain the current coverage of EACMS, except for new Part 1.6 of 
Requirement R1, which addresses software integrity and authenticity. 
Moreover, NERC's petition acknowledges that requirements in the 
existing CIP Reliability Standards ``require Responsible Entities to 
apply certain protections to PACS, EACMS, and PCAs, given their 
association with BES Cyber Systems either by function or location.'' 
\38\ This statement suggests a recognition by NERC that EACMS, PACS, 
and PCAs warrant certain protections. We agree with NERC's statement, 
but we believe that the most important focus is on EACMS for the 
reasons described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ NERC Petition at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. In addition, while EACMS is a term unique to NERC-developed 
Reliability Standards, it is widely recognized that the types of access 
and monitoring functions that are included within NERC's definition of 
EACMS, such as firewalls, are integral to protecting industrial control 
systems. For example, the Department of Homeland Security's Industrial 
Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) identifies 
firewalls as ``the first line of defense within an ICS network 
environment'' that ``keep the intruder out while allowing the 
authorized passage of data necessary to run the organization.'' \39\ 
ICS-CERT further explains that firewalls ``act as

[[Page 3439]]

sentinels, or gatekeepers, between zones . . . [and] [w]hen properly 
configured, they will only let essential traffic cross security 
boundaries[,] . . . [i]f they are not properly configured, they could 
easily pass unauthorized or malicious users or content.'' Accordingly, 
if EACMS are compromised, that could adversely affect the reliable 
operation of associated BES Cyber Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ICS-CERT, Recommended Practice: Improving Industrial 
Control System Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies, at 23 
(September 2016), https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/recommended_practices/NCCIC_ICS-CERT_Defense_in_Depth_2016_S508C.pdf. See also NIST, Guide to 
Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security, NIST Special Publication 
800-82, Revision 2, at Section 5 (ICS Security Architecture) (May 
2015) (discussing importance of technologies and strategies, 
including firewalls, to secure industrial control systems), http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-82r2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. NERC explains that the standard drafting team chose to limit 
the scope of the proposed Reliability Standards to medium and high 
impact BES Cyber Systems, but not their associated Cyber Assets (e.g., 
EACMS), in order not to ``divert resources from protecting medium and 
high BES Cyber Systems.'' \40\ As noted above, EACMS include 
``authentication servers (e.g., RADIUS servers, Active Directory 
servers, Certificate Authorities), security event monitoring systems, 
and intrusion detection systems'' that are integral to the security of 
the medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems to which they are 
associated.\41\ While NERC states that it will continue to assess 
whether supply chain risks related to low impact BES Cyber Systems, 
PACS, EACMS, and PCAs necessitate further consideration for inclusion 
in a mandatory Reliability Standard, in view of the discussion above, 
we propose to determine that a sufficient basis currently exists to 
include EACMS associated with medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems 
in the supply chain risk management Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id. at 20.
    \41\ Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a (Cyber Security--BES 
Cyber System Categorization), Section A.6 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. Accordingly, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the 
Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop modifications to the CIP 
Reliability Standards to include EACMS associated with medium and high 
impact BES Cyber Systems within the scope of the supply chain risk 
management Reliability Standards. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal.

B. BOT-Requested Cyber Security Supply Chain Risks Study

    40. As discussed above, we believe it is appropriate to await the 
findings from the BOT-requested study on cyber security supply chain 
risks before considering whether low impact BES Cyber Systems should be 
addressed in the supply chain risk management Reliability Standards.
    41. We note that while the BOT resolutions explicitly stated that 
the BOT-requested study should examine the risks posed by low impact 
BES Cyber Systems, the BOT resolutions did not identify PACS and PCAs 
as subjects of the study. However, NERC's petition suggests that NERC 
will be evaluating PACS and PCAs as part of the BOT-requested 
study.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ NERC Petition at 21 (``over the next 18 months, NERC, 
working with various stakeholders, will continue to assess whether 
supply chain risks related to low impact BES Cyber Systems, PACS, 
EACMS, and PCA necessitate further consideration for inclusion in a 
mandatory Reliability Standard'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. While many of the concerns expressed in the previous section 
with respect to the risks posed by EACMS also apply to varying degrees 
to PACS and PCAs, we propose to direct NERC, consistent with the 
representation made in NERC's petition, to include PACS and PCAs in the 
BOT-requested study and to await the findings of the study's final 
report before considering further action. We distinguish among EACMS 
and the other Cyber Assets because, for example, a compromise of a 
PACS, which would potentially grant an attacker physical access to a 
BES Cyber System or PCA, is less likely since physical access is also 
required. Therefore, while we believe that EACMS require immediate 
action, because they represent the most likely route an attacker would 
take to access a BES Cyber System or PCA within an ESP, possible action 
on other Cyber Assets can await completion of the BOT-requested study's 
final report.
    43. In addition to proposing to direct NERC to include PACS and 
PCAs in the BOT-requested study, we propose to direct that NERC file 
the study's interim and final reports with the Commission upon their 
completion. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

C. Implementation Plan

    44. The 18-month implementation period proposed by NERC does not 
appear to be justified based on the anticipated effort required to 
develop and implement a supply chain risk management plan.\43\ While 
NERC maintains that the proposed implementation period is ``designed to 
afford responsible entities sufficient time to develop and implement 
their supply chain cybersecurity risk management plans required under 
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 and implement the new controls 
required in proposed Reliability Standards CIP-005-6 and CIP-010-3,'' 
\44\ the security objectives of the proposed Reliability Standards are 
process-based and do not prescribe technology that might justify an 
extended implementation period. Instead, we propose that the proposed 
Reliability Standards become effective the first day of the first 
calendar quarter that is 12 months following the effective date of a 
Commission order approving the Reliability Standards. Our proposed 
implementation period is reasonable, given the nature of the 
requirements in the proposed Reliability Standards, and provides 
enhanced security for the bulk electric system in a timelier manner. We 
seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The 18-month implementation plan proposed by NERC may be 
longer given NERC's request that the effective date of the proposed 
Reliability Standards falls on the first day of the first calendar 
quarter that is 18 months after the effective date of a Commission 
order approving the proposed Reliability Standards.
    \44\ NERC Petition at 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    45. The FERC-725B information collection requirements contained in 
this notice of proposed rulemaking are subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995.\45\ OMB's regulations require approval of 
certain information collection requirements imposed by agency 
rules.\46\ Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will 
assign an OMB control number and expiration date. Respondents subject 
to the filing requirements of this rule will not be penalized for 
failing to respond to these collections of information unless the 
collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The 
Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need for this 
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the 
accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any 
suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use 
of automated information techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \46\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. The Commission bases its paperwork burden estimates on the 
changes in paperwork burden presented by the newly proposed CIP 
Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 and the proposed revisions to CIP 
Reliability Standard CIP-005-6 and CIP-010-3 as compared to the current 
Commission-approved Reliability Standards CIP-005-5 and CIP-010-2, 
respectively. As discussed above, the notice of proposed rulemaking 
addresses several areas of the CIP Reliability Standards through 
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-013-1, Requirements R1, R2, and R3. 
Under Requirement R1, responsible entities

[[Page 3440]]

would be required to have one or more processes to address the 
following baseline set of security concepts, as applicable, in their 
procurement activities for high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems: 
(1) Vendor security event notification processes (Part 1.2.1); (2) 
coordinated incident response activities (Part 1.2.2); (3) vendor 
personnel termination notification for employees with access to remote 
and onsite systems (Part 1.2.3); (4) product/services vulnerability 
disclosures (Part 1.2.4); (5) verification of software integrity and 
authenticity (Part 1.2.5); and (6) coordination of vendor remote access 
controls (Part 1.2.6). Requirement R2 mandates that each responsible 
entity implement its supply chain cybersecurity risk management plan. 
Requirement R3 requires a responsible entity to review and obtain the 
CIP Senior Manager's approval of its supply chain risk management plan 
at least once every 15 calendar months in order to ensure that the plan 
remains up-to-date.
    47. Separately, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-005-6, 
Requirement R2.4 requires one or more methods for determining active 
vendor remote access sessions, including Interactive Remote Access and 
system[hyphen]to[hyphen]system remote access. Proposed Reliability 
Standard CIP-005-6, Requirement R2.5 requires one or more methods to 
disable active vendor remote access, including Interactive Remote 
Access and system[hyphen]to[hyphen]system remote access. Proposed 
Reliability Standard CIP-010-3, Requirement R1.6 requires responsible 
entities to verify software integrity and authenticity in the 
operational phase, if the software source provides a method to do so.
    48. The NERC Compliance Registry, as of December 2017, identifies 
approximately 1,250 unique U.S. entities that are subject to mandatory 
compliance with Reliability Standards. Of this total, we estimate that 
288 entities will face an increased paperwork burden under proposed 
Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6, and CIP-010-3. Based on 
these assumptions, we estimate the following reporting burden:

                                                                    RM17-13-000 NOPR
                             [Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annual number                                              Total annual burden       Cost per
                                          Number of     of responses    Total number    Average burden and cost   hours and total annual    respondent
                                         respondents   per respondent   of responses        per response 47                cost                 ($)
                                                  (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).....................  (3) * (4) = (5)........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                  (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create supply chain risk management               288               1             288  546 hrs.; $44,772.......  157,248 hrs.;                    44,772
 plan (one-time) 48 (CIP-013-1 R1).                                                                               $12,894,336.
Updates and reviews of supply chain               288               1             288  30 hrs.; $2,460.........  8,640 hrs.; $708,480...           2,460
 risk management plan (ongoing) 49
 (CIP-013-1 R2).
Develop Procedures to update remote               288               1             288  50 hrs.; $4,100.........  14,400 hrs.; $1,180,800           4,100
 access requirements (one time) (CIP-
 005-6 R1-R4).
Develop procedures for software                   288               1             288  50 hrs.; $4,100.........  14,400 hrs.; $1,180,800           4,100
 integrity and authenticity
 requirements (one time) (CIP-010-3
 R1-R4).
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (one-time).................  ..............  ..............             864  ........................  186,048 hrs.;            ..............
                                                                                                                  $15,255,936.
    Total (ongoing)..................  ..............  ..............             288  ........................  8,640 hrs.; $708,340...  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The one-time burden of 186,048 hours will be averaged over three 
years (186,048 hours / 3 = 62,016 hours/year over three years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The loaded hourly wage figure (includes benefits) is based 
on the average of the occupational categories for 2016 found on the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm):
    Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000): $143.68.
    Information Security Analysts (Occupation Code 15-1122): $66.34.
    Computer and Information Systems Managers (Occupation Code: 11-
3021): $100.68.
    Management (Occupation Code: 11-0000): $81.52.
    Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071): $68.12.
    Management Analyst( Code: 43-0000): $63.49.
    These various occupational categories are weighted as follows: 
[($81.52)(.10) + $66.34(.315) + $68.12(.02) + $143.68(.15) + 
$100.68(.10) + $63.49(.315)] = $82.03. The figure is rounded to 
$82.00 for use in calculating wage figures in this NOPR.
    \48\ One-time burdens apply in Year One only.
    \49\ Ongoing burdens apply in Year 2 and beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ongoing burden of 8,640 hours applies to only Years 2 and 
beyond.
    The number of responses is also average over three years (864 
responses (one-time) + (288 responses (Year 2) + 288 responses (Year 
3)) / 3 = 480 responses.
    The responses and burden for Years 1-3 will total respectively as 
follows:
Year 1: 480 responses; 62,016 hours
Year 2: 480 responses; 62,016 hours + 8,640 hours = 70,656 hours
Year 3: 480 responses; 62,016 hours + 8,640 hours = 70,656 hours
    49. The following shows the annual cost burden for each year, based 
on the burden hours in the table above:

<bullet> Year 1: $15,255,936
<bullet> Years 2 and beyond: $708,480
<bullet> The paperwork burden estimate includes costs associated with 
the initial development of a policy to address requirements relating 
to: (1) Developing the supply chain risk management plan; (2) updating 
the procedures related to remote access requirements (3) developing the 
procedures related to software integrity and authenticity. Further, the 
estimate reflects the assumption that costs incurred in year 1 will 
pertain to plan and procedure development, while costs in years 2 and 3 
will reflect the burden associated with maintaining the SCRM plan and 
modifying it as necessary on a 15 month basis.


[[Page 3441]]


    50. Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards, Revised Critical 
Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards.
    Action: Proposed Collection FERC-725B.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0248.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This notice of proposed rulemaking 
proposes to approve the requested modifications to Reliability 
Standards pertaining to critical infrastructure protection. As 
discussed above, the Commission proposes to approve NERC's proposed CIP 
Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6, and CIP-010-3 pursuant to 
section 215(d)(2) of the FPA because they improve upon the currently-
effective suite of cyber security CIP Reliability Standards.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed 
Reliability Standards and made a determination that its action is 
necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA.
    51. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen 
Brown, Office of the Executive Director, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a0e2b3e2b09262f2b382b24292f0a2c2f3829642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5b1948194b699909487949b9690b593908796db929a83">[email protected]</span></a>, phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].
    52. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of 
information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your 
comments to the Commission, and to the Office of Management and Budget, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
phone: (202) 395-4638, fax: (202) 395-7285]. For security reasons, 
comments to OMB should be submitted by e-mail to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2cdcbd0c3fdd1d7c0cfcbd1d1cbcdcce2cdcfc08cc7cdd28cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfd0d6cddee0cccaddd2d6ccccd6d0d1ffd0d2dd91dad0cf91d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments submitted to OMB should include 
Docket Number RM17-13-000.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    53. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may 
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\50\ The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this 
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, 
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the 
effect of the regulations being amended.\51\ The actions proposed 
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \51\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    54. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires 
a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\52\ The 
Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops 
the numerical definition of a small business.\53\ The SBA revised its 
size standard for electric utilities (effective January 22, 2014) to a 
standard based on the number of employees, including affiliates (from 
the prior standard based on megawatt hour sales).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \53\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \54\ 13 CFR 121.201, Subsection 221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. Proposed Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6, CIP-010-3 
are expected to impose an additional burden on 288 entities \55\ 
(reliability coordinators, generator operators, generator owners, 
interchange coordinators or authorities, transmission operators, 
balancing authorities, and transmission owners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Public utilities may fall under one of several different 
categories, each with a size threshold based on the company's number 
of employees, including affiliates, the parent company, and 
subsidiaries. For the analysis in this NOPR, we are using a 500 
employee threshold due to each affected entity falling within the 
role of Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control (NAISC Code: 
221121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. Of the 288 affected entities discussed above, we estimate that 
approximately 248 or 86.2 percent of the affected entities are small 
entities. We estimate that each of the 248 small entities to whom the 
proposed modifications to Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6, 
CIP-010-3 apply will incur one-time costs of approximately $52,972 per 
entity to implement the proposed Reliability Standards, as well as the 
ongoing paperwork burden reflected in the Information Collection 
Statement (approximately $2,460 per year per entity). We do not 
consider the estimated costs for these 248 small entities to be a 
significant economic impact. Accordingly, we certify that proposed 
Reliability Standards CIP-013-1, CIP-005-6, and CIP-010-3 will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

VI. Comment Procedures

    57. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on 
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including 
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish 
to discuss. Comments are due March 26, 2018. Comments must refer to 
Docket No. RM17-13-000, and must include the commenter's name, the 
organization they represent, if applicable, and address.
    58. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically 
via the eFiling link on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing 
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing 
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format 
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not 
need to make a paper filing.
    59. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically 
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426.
    60. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files 
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the 
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are 
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    61. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and 
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours 
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, 
Washington, DC 20426.
    62. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this 
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is 
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, 
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type 
the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in 
the docket number field.
    63. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's 
website during normal business hours from the

[[Page 3442]]

Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-
3676) or e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f595a4d5c50515356515a4c4a4f4f504d4b7f595a4d5c11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9afacbbaaa6a7a5a0a7acbabcb9b9a6bbbd89afacbbaae7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>, or the Public Reference 
Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference 
Room at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2c2c7d0dedbd19cc0d7d4d7c0d7dcd1d7c0dddddff2d4d7c0d19cd5ddc4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9fefeafdf3f6fcb1edfaf9faedfaf1fcfaedf0f0f2dff9faedfcb1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a>.

    By direction of the Commission. Commissioner LaFleur is 
concurring with a separate statement attached.

    Issued: January 18, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

Attachment

LaFLEUR, Commissioner concurring:

    In today's order, the Commission proposes to approve the supply 
chain risk management standards filed by the North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (NERC), and direct certain modifications to 
those standards. I write separately to explain my vote in support of 
today's order, given my dissent on the Commission order that 
directed the development of these standards.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability 
Standards, Order No. 829, 156 FERC ] 61,050 (2016) (LaFleur, Comm'r, 
dissenting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As I stated in my dissent, I shared the Commission's concern 
about supply chain threats and supported continued Commission 
attention to those threats. Indeed, I remain concerned that the 
supply chain is a significant cyber vulnerability for the bulk power 
system. However, I believed that the Commission was proceeding too 
quickly to require a supply chain standard, without having 
sufficiently worked with NERC, industry, and other stakeholders on 
how to design an effective, auditable, and enforceable standard. In 
my view, the directive that resulted was insufficiently developed 
and created a risk that needed protections against supply threats 
would be delayed, due in large part to the nature of the NERC 
standards process.
    Given the limited guidance and timeline provided by the 
Commission in Order No. 829, the proposed standards are, 
unsurprisingly, quite general, focusing primarily ``on the processes 
Responsible Entities implement to consider and address cyber 
security risks from vendor products or services during BES Cyber 
System planning and procurement, not on the outcome of those 
processes . . .'' \2\ The proposed standards would provide 
significant flexibility to registered entities to determine how best 
to comply with their requirements. In my view, that flexibility 
presents both potential risks and benefits. It could allow 
effective, adaptable approaches to flourish, or allow compliance 
plans that meet the letter of the standards but do not effectively 
address supply chain threats. I hope that we will see more of the 
former, but I believe the Commission, NERC, and the Regional 
Entities should closely monitor implementation if the standards are 
ultimately approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NERC Petition at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In voting for today's order, I recognize that the choice before 
the Commission today is not the same as it was in July 2016. I 
acknowledge that a significant amount of time and effort have been 
committed to the development of these standards in response to a 
duly voted Commission order. Most importantly, I agree that they are 
an improvement over the status quo. I do not believe that remanding 
these standards or the larger supply chain issue to the NERC 
standards process would be a prudent step at this point. Rather, I 
believe the better course of action at this time is to move forward 
with these standards and, assuming the Commission ultimately 
proceeds to Final Rule, improve them over time as needed.
    In that regard, I believe the Commission is appropriately 
proposing to direct a modification to the proposed standards to 
address an identified reliability gap regarding Electronic Access 
Control and Monitoring Systems. I also support the proposal to 
require NERC to include Physical Access Controls and Protected Cyber 
Assets within its ongoing assessment of the supply chain risks posed 
by low-impact Bulk Electric System Cyber Systems, which will help 
the Commission and NERC determine whether further revisions to the 
standards are needed.
    More so than with most standards, I believe that whether these 
standards are effective will only reveal itself over time as we gain 
additional experience with them. I am therefore particularly 
interested in feedback from commenters on how the Commission, NERC, 
and industry should assess these standards, including any reporting 
obligations that might be appropriate.\3\ In addition, given the 
very general process-oriented nature of the standard, I also support 
the proposal to shorten the implementation date for the new 
standards. If ultimately adopted, the revised deadline will allow 
industry, NERC, and the Commission to put the standards in place 
sooner while continuing to evaluate how best to protect the bulk 
power system against supply chain threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ I note that NERC has also developed draft implementation 
guidance that provides additional detail regarding possible 
compliance approaches. As NERC and the Regional Entities gain 
additional experience with assessing compliance under these 
standards, updating this implementation guidance could be an 
effective approach for quickly disseminating best practices and 
lessons learned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, I respectfully concur.

Cheryl A. LaFleur,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 2018-01247 Filed 1-24-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>