[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13952-13957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-05711]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM25-8-000]


Order No. 918; Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability 
Standard CIP-003-11--Cyber Security--Security Management Controls

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final action.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves 
the proposed Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability 
Standard CIP-003-11 (Cyber Security--Security Management Controls). The 
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-
certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted the 
proposed Reliability Standard to mitigate risks posed by a coordinated 
cyberattack on low-impact facilities, the aggregate impact of which 
could be much greater.

DATES: This action is effective May 26, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Jacob Waxman (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-6879, [email protected].
Felicia West (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426, (202) 502-8948, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    1. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves proposed 
Reliability Standard CIP-003-11, submitted by the North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). We also approve the associated 
violation risk factors, violation severity levels, implementation plan, 
and effective date for the proposed Reliability Standard. In addition, 
we approve the retirement of the currently effective version of the 
proposed Reliability Standard upon the effective date of Reliability 
Standard CIP-003-11.\2\ We approve proposed Reliability Standard CIP-
003-11 because it improves the reliability of the bulk electric system 
(BES) by strengthening the cyber security protections for low impact 
BES Cyber Systems to reduce the risk of compromise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
    \2\ Concurrently in Docket No. RM24-8-000, we are issuing a 
final rule, in which we are approving, inter alia, the proposed 
Reliability Standard CIP-003-10. Virtualization Reliability 
Standards, 194 FERC ] 61,209 (2026). Here, we are approving the 
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-11, which will supersede 
Reliability Standard CIP-003-10. NERC explains that the proposed 
Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 incorporates and builds upon 
virtualization-related revisions in the proposed Reliability 
Standard CIP-003-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Proposed CIP Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 specifies security 
management controls that establish responsibility and accountability to 
protect low impact BES Cyber Systems against compromise that could lead 
to misoperation or instability in the bulk electric system.\3\ The 
proposed modifications to the Reliability Standard mitigate the risks 
posed by a coordinated attack utilizing distributed low impact BES 
Cyber Systems by adding controls to authenticate remote users, 
protecting authentication information in transit, and detecting 
malicious communications to or between assets containing low impact BES 
Cyber Systems with external routable connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NERC Petition at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Section 215 of the FPA and Mandatory Reliability Standards

    3. Section 215 of the FPA provides that the Commission may certify 
an Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), the purpose of which is to 
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to 
Commission review and approval.\4\ Reliability Standards may be 
enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the 
Commission independently.\5\ Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the 
Commission established a process to select and certify an ERO,\6\ and 
subsequently certified NERC.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(c).
    \5\ Id. 824o(e).
    \6\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Elec. Reliability 
Org.; & Procs. for the Establishment, Approval, & Enf't of Elec. 
Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 71 FR 8662 (Feb. 17, 2006), 
114 FERC ] 61,104, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, 71 FR 19814 
(Apr. 18, 2006), 114 FERC ] 61,328 (2006); see also 18 CFR 39.4(b).
    \7\ N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 61,062, order on 
reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa, 
Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NERC Petition

    4. On December 20, 2024, NERC submitted proposed Reliability 
Standard CIP-003-11 (Cyber Security--Security Management Controls) for 
Commission approval.\8\ NERC stated that the purpose of proposed CIP 
Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 is to ``specify consistent and 
sustainable security management controls that establish responsibility 
and accountability to protect BES Cyber Systems (``BCS'') against 
compromise that could lead to misoperation or instability in the 
[BES].'' \9\ NERC explained that proposed CIP-003-11 is intended to 
``mitigate the risks posed by a coordinated attack utilizing 
distributed low impact BES Cyber Systems'' by adding three specific 
categories of controls: ``controls to authenticate remote users; 
protecting the authentication information in transit; and detecting 
malicious communications to or between assets containing low impact BES 
Cyber Systems with external routable

[[Page 13953]]

connectivity.'' \10\ In addition to seeking Commission approval of 
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-11, NERC requested that the 
Commission approve: (i) the associated implementation plan; (ii) the 
associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels; (iii) 
and the retirement of the proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-10 or 
the version of Reliability Standard CIP-003 then in effect.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The proposed Reliability Standard is not attached to this 
final rule. The proposed Reliability Standard is available on the 
Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM25-
8-000 and on the NERC website, www.nerc.com.
    \9\ NERC Petition at 1.
    \10\ Id. at 1-2. See also id. at 8-9 (citing NERC, Low Impact 
Criteria Review Report, at v and 15 (Oct. 2022) (Low Impact Criteria 
Review Report), https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/our-work/reports/white-papers/nerc_licrt_white_paper_clean.pdf.
    \11\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    5. On September 18, 2025, the Commission issued a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve Reliability Standard 
CIP-003-11.\12\ The Commission noted that under the tiered structure of 
the CIP Reliability Standards, most BES Cyber Systems are categorized 
as low impact and therefore are subject to fewer cybersecurity 
requirements than medium and high impact systems.\13\ However, the 
Commission emphasized that ``low impact BES Cyber Systems may still 
introduce reliability risks of a higher impact when distributed low 
impact BES Cyber Systems are subjected to a coordinated cyber-attack.'' 
\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standard 
CIP-003-11--Cyber Sec.--Sec. Mgmt. Controls, 192 FERC ] 61,227 
(2025) (NOPR).
    \13\ Id. PP 5-6.
    \14\ Id. P 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comments on the continuing 
threats of compromise to low impact BES Cyber Systems and on whether it 
would be worthwhile to direct NERC to perform a study or develop a 
whitepaper on evolving threats as they relate to the potential 
exploitation of low impact BES Cyber Systems.\15\ The Commission 
received comments from the following: NERC, the Trade Associations, Mr. 
Tammer Haddad, and Mr. Michael Ravnitzky.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. P 16.
    \16\ The Trade Associations include: American Public Power 
Association, Edison Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply 
Association, Large Public Power Council, National Rural Electric 
Cooperative Association, and Transmission Access Policy Study Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-11

1. Comments
    7. NERC and the Trade Associations support the Commission's 
proposal to approve Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 without 
modification. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 
``would enhance reliability by mitigating the risk posed by a 
coordinated attack using distributed low impact BES Cyber Systems.'' 
\17\ NERC reiterates that by adding controls to authenticate remote 
users, protect the authentication information in transit, and detect 
malicious communications to, from, or between assets containing low 
impact BES Cyber Systems with external routable connectivity, the BES 
Cyber Systems are more protected from the threat of a coordinated 
attack on dispersed low impact systems. NERC ``strongly encourages the 
Commission to move forward . . . expeditiously'' so that the 
reliability benefits of the proposed Standard ``may be realized as soon 
as possible.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NERC Comments at 2. See also Trade Associations Comments at 
1.
    \18\ NERC Comments at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The Trade Associations state that the proposed modifications 
``appropriately implements'' the Low Impact Criteria Review Report's 
recommendations, including requirements to permit only necessary 
access, authenticate users, protect credentials in transit, detect 
malicious communications, and control vendor access.\19\ In their view, 
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 ``will improve the baseline 
cybersecurity requirements to mitigate against threats of a coordinated 
attack'' for low impact BES Cyber Systems and complements the 
protections already included in Reliability Standard CIP-005 and 
related Reliability Standards.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Trade Associations Comments at 5-6 (citing the Low Impact 
Criteria Review Report).
    \20\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Conversely, Mr. Haddad and Mr. Ravnitzky argue that the proposed 
Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 is incomplete and should not be 
approved without modification.\21\ Mr. Haddad contends that the 
proposed Standard adopts a ``detection-only approach'' for low impact 
BES Cyber Systems that ``creates unacceptable vulnerabilities that 
sophisticated threat actors are actively exploiting.'' \22\ Mr. Haddad 
cites the Volt Typhoon and Colonial Pipeline incidents as evidence that 
detection without response enables adversaries to persist and pivot. He 
recommends remanding the proposed Standard to NERC with directions to 
add response requirements, establish collaborative defense mechanisms 
such as Regional Security Operations Centers, provide support for small 
utilities, and accelerate implementation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Mr. Haddad Comments at 1; Mr. Ravnitzky Comments at 5.
    \22\ Mr. Haddad Comments at 1-2.
    \23\ Id. at 1-2, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Mr. Ravnitzky similarly argues that approving CIP-003-11 
without additional requirements ``risks leaving exploitable gaps in the 
Bulk-Power System's defenses,'' \24\ particularly because ``adversaries 
exploit weak, distributed targets to reach critical systems.'' \25\ Mr. 
Ravnitzky further claims that ``[t]he NOPR does not contain an explicit 
requirement addressing lateral-movement risk.'' \26\ He recommends 
conditioning approval on adding mandatory response timelines, 
clarifying definitions, mandating network segmentation or compensating 
controls, requiring cryptographic baselines, and enhancing vendor 
access, telemetry, and validation obligations.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Mr. Ravnitzky Comments at 5.
    \25\ Id. at 1.
    \26\ Id. at 2. ``Lateral movement'' is the set of techniques 
adversaries use after gaining an initial foothold in a network to 
move from one system, account, or network segment to another, with 
the goal of expanding access, escalating privileges, discovering 
critical assets, and positioning themselves for further actions 
(such as data theft, disruption, or impact). See MITRE ATT&CK, 
Lateral Movement (last updated Aug. 11, 2025), https://attack.mitre.org/tactics/TA0008/.
    \27\ Mr. Ravnitzky Comments at 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    11. We adopt the NOPR proposal and approve Reliability Standard 
CIP-003-11 as proposed by NERC. Based on the record in this proceeding, 
we find that Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 is just, reasonable, not 
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.\28\ 
We also approve the associated violation risk factors, violation 
severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date for the 
proposed Reliability Standard. In addition, we approve the retirement 
of the currently effective version of the proposed Reliability Standard 
upon the effective date of Reliability Standard CIP-003-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See NOPR, 192 FERC ] 61,127 at P 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. We agree with NERC that Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 
strengthens baseline cybersecurity protections for low impact BES Cyber 
Systems by addressing the risk of coordinated cyberattacks that exploit 
distributed, externally routable assets. We find that the new 
requirements to authenticate remote users, protect authentication 
information in transit, and detect malicious communications directly 
target the threat vectors identified in the Low Impact Criteria Review 
Report and represent a measured, risk-based enhancement to

[[Page 13954]]

existing controls applicable to low impact BES Cyber Systems.\29\ The 
expansion of detection requirements to include all traffic into or out 
of a low impact BES Cyber System, as opposed to just detecting 
malicious traffic in vendor-based electronic access, should mitigate 
the risk of malicious communications to or from a low impact BES Cyber 
System from going undetected.\30\ Similarly, we agree with NERC that 
the new requirements to authenticate users and protect their 
authentication information should mitigate the risk of unauthorized 
users gaining access to low impact BES Cyber Systems or compromising 
legitimate credentials to gain access.\31\ Together, these controls 
should improve the cybersecurity posture of the BES by protecting 
against potential coordinated attacks on multiple low impact BES Cyber 
Systems or using a compromised low impact BES Cyber System to move 
laterally and pivot to a medium or high impact BES Cyber System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id. P 8; Low Impact Criteria Review Report at 15.
    \30\ NERC Petition at 16.
    \31\ Id. at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. We acknowledge concerns raised by individual commenters that 
Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 does not impose explicit response or 
remediation requirements,\32\ except in the event of a system 
disruption.\33\ However, we decline to condition the approval of 
Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 on the addition of response-specific 
requirements. We find that NERC reasonably determined, through the 
Reliability Standards development process, that Reliability Standard 
CIP-003-11 should focus on baseline access controls, and authentication 
and detection enhancements for low impact BES Cyber Systems, while 
continuing to evaluate response-related issues through ongoing 
initiatives.\34\ In particular, we note that NERC's CIP Roadmap, 
discussed further below, recommends developing guidance for improved 
cybersecurity incident response plans and associated playbooks,\35\ and 
we encourage NERC to address both substantive response efforts and 
recommended timeline(s) for response as part of that effort. We also 
note that Reliability Standard CIP-003-11, Requirement R2 and Section 4 
of Attachment 1 require entities to have Cyber Security Incident 
Response plans for low impact BES Cyber Systems, including 
identification, classification, and response to Cyber Security 
Incidents.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Mr. Haddad Comments at 1-4; Mr. Ravnitzky Comments at 
2-4.
    \33\ Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-11, Requirement R2 & 
Attach. 1, Sec. 4.
    \34\ See NERC Comments 4-8; see also NERC Petition at 6-7. See 
infra Section II.B (discussing NERC's proposed initiatives in its 
Critical Infrastructure Protection Roadmap (Jan. 2026) (CIP 
Roadmap), https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/our-work/reports/special-reports/nerc_cip_roadmap_01122026.pdf.
    \35\ CIP Roadmap at 9.
    \36\ Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-003-11, Requirement R2 & 
Attach. 1, Sec. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposal for NERC Study

1. NOPR Proposal
    14. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that NERC developed the 
proposed modifications to Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 based on the 
recommendations of the Low Impact Criteria Review Report. Noting 
cybersecurity threats that have emerged since the 2022 issuance of the 
Report, the Commission asked for comment on the merit of directing NERC 
to perform a study or develop a whitepaper on evolving threats as they 
relate to the potential exploitation of low impact BES Cyber 
Systems.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ NOPR, 192 FERC ] 61,127 at P 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments on Evolving Threats and an Additional Study
    15. All commenters generally agree that coordinated attacks 
leveraging remote access to multiple low impact BES Cyber Systems 
present systemic reliability risks,\38\ but differ in opinion as to 
whether the Commission should direct NERC to perform further study. 
NERC and the Trade Associations oppose a directive to require NERC to 
conduct a study--explaining that NERC already has multiple initiatives 
underway, including the Level 2 Alert on Cross-Border Remote Access and 
the CIP Roadmap, which is evaluating emerging cybersecurity and 
physical risk across the industry.\39\ NERC asserts that requiring a 
study would duplicate existing efforts and interfere with NERC's multi-
year planning process.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Mr. Haddad Comments at 2; NERC Comments at 3-4; Mr. 
Ravnitzky Comments at 2; Trade Associations Comments at 5-6.
    \39\ NERC Comments at 1-2, 8; Trade Associations Comments at 1-
2, 10-12 (citing NERC, 2025 Work Plan Priorities (Dec. 10, 2024), 
https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/who-we-are/2025-work-plan-priorities-approved-december-10-2024.pdf); see also CIP Roadmap.
    \40\ NERC Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. NERC emphasizes that it has already conducted a comprehensive 
assessment of evolving cyber risks through the issuance of the Level 2 
Alert on Cross-Border Remote Access and the development of the CIP 
Roadmap approved as part of the NERC's 2025 Work Plan Priorities.\41\ 
NERC further states that the CIP Roadmap will ``evaluate standards 
against emerging cybersecurity and physical risks (e.g., network 
intrusion, new registrants, emerging cyber threats, cloud usage, 
artificial intelligence, or other new technologies).'' \42\ NERC 
explains that the results of the Level 2 Alert and CIP Roadmap will 
enable NERC and industry to prioritize risks and determine whether 
additional studies, guidance documents, or standards development 
projects are warranted.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id. at 4-5.
    \42\ Id. at 6-7.
    \43\ Id. at 8; Trade Associations Comments at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Similarly, Trade Associations claim that directing NERC to 
conduct an additional study would be inefficient and counterproductive 
given the ongoing industry efforts coordinated through NERC and its 
technical committees.\44\ They note that industry participants are 
already engaged in multiple parallel initiatives addressing emerging 
cyber risks, including work on cloud security, artificial intelligence, 
internal network security monitoring, supply chain management and 
vendor incident response.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Trade Associations Comments at 11-12.
    \45\ Id. at 11-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. However, Mr. Haddad and Mr. Ravnitzky raise issues concerning 
the adequacy of cybersecurity protections for low impact BES Cyber 
Systems, including the potential for pivoting from low-impact systems 
into medium and high impact systems or from non-BES Cyber Assets into 
low-impact systems.\46\ Mr. Ravnitzky recommends that NERC be directed 
to publish an ``adversary-centric whitepaper mapping plausible attack 
chains from low-impact compromises to system effects.'' \47\ He 
recommends that the study include measurable performance indicators for 
detection and response and be coordinated with federal partners such as 
the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the 
Department of Energy (DOE).\48\ He contends that anonymized key 
performance indicator reporting could be used so that industry and 
regulators can measure systemic programs and provide guidance for 
future rulemakings.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Mr. Haddad Comments at 2, Mr. Ravnitzky Comments at 2.
    \47\ Mr. Ravnitzky Comments at 4.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Mr. Haddad expresses concern that threat assessments can become 
obsolete due to the rapid evolution of cyber environments and 
threats.\50\ Mr. Haddad argues that ``periodic re-

[[Page 13955]]

evaluation of threat models must become standard practice, especially 
for sectors like energy where adversaries have demonstrated persistence 
and patience.'' \51\ Beyond an additional study, Mr. Haddad recommends 
the Commission establish a federal task force for ``small utility 
cybersecurity'' including the Commission, DOE, CISA, and NERC, to 
develop and support the implementation of shared security services and 
capabilities for small utilities.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Mr. Haddad Comments, attach. at 6 (Literary Review).
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Mr. Haddad Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    20. We decline to direct NERC to conduct an additional standalone 
study, or whitepaper, on evolving threats related to the potential 
exploitation of low impact BES Cyber Systems.
    21. We are persuaded by NERC's explanation that it already has 
substantial and comprehensive efforts underway that are evaluating the 
risks to low impact BES Cyber Systems.\53\ NERC explains that it will 
consider the ``collective findings from the Level 2 Alert and the CIP 
Roadmap to determine the most serious cyber security and physical risks 
to the BPS'' and that ``future actions will likely include studies, if 
it is determined more information is needed.'' \54\ NERC explains that 
the CIP Roadmap will inform NERC's CIP Reliability Standards priorities 
over the next few years.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ NERC Comments at 7-8.
    \54\ Id. at 8.
    \55\ Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. In fact, since the issuance of the NOPR and submission of 
comments, NERC publicly issued its CIP Roadmap.\56\ We note that the 
CIP Roadmap identifies several focus areas that directly affect low 
impact BES Cyber Systems, including risks associated with remote and 
third-party access, shared and cloud-managed infrastructure, lateral 
movement pathways, and the maturity of detection capabilities.\57\ The 
CIP Roadmap emphasizes that low impact BES Cyber Systems may present 
increased system risk when leveraged as part of coordinated attacks and 
recommends that these risks be addressed through the prioritized, risk-
based evolution of CIP Reliability Standards and supporting guidance, 
rather than isolated or duplicative studies.\58\ While the CIP Roadmap 
does not establish fixed timelines for each recommendation, NERC 
asserts that it actively prioritizes these efforts based on risk 
significance, operational feasibility, and stakeholder input.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See supra note 35.
    \57\ CIP Roadmap at 3, 6, 8.
    \58\ Id. at 5 (citing the Low Impact Criteria Review Report).
    \59\ Id. at 2-3; see also NERC Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Based on these considerations, we conclude that directing NERC 
to perform an additional study at this time is unnecessary. NERC's 
ongoing work under the CIP Roadmap, including the recommendations 
related to Reliability Standards development, provides an appropriate 
and efficient mechanism to address evolving threats to low impact BES 
Cyber Systems and related concerns.
    24. We further encourage NERC to look at how it can achieve 
efficiencies in effort and time in the implementation of the 
recommendations outlined in the CIP Roadmap report. The 
recommendations, if implemented in a timely and efficient manner, 
present the opportunity to significantly advance the security of low 
impact BES Cyber Systems. We will continue to monitor NERC's progress 
and expect NERC to keep us informed of material findings from this work 
that may warrant future consideration.
    25. Finally, we believe that our approval of Reliability Standard 
CIP-003-11 and NERC's ongoing initiatives will address some of these 
concerns raised by commenters, such as the risk of lateral 
movement.\60\ In response to Mr. Haddad, we also decline to recommend a 
federal task force for ``small utility cybersecurity,'' as it is out of 
scope for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See supra Section II.A.2 (explaining how Reliability 
Standard CIP-003-11 will strengthen protections for low impact BES 
Cyber Systems). See supra note 26; see also CIP Roadmap at 5, 8 
(noting how multi-factor authentication can help mitigate the risk 
of lateral movement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    26. The Commission bases its paperwork burden estimates on the 
additional paperwork burden presented by the revisions to Reliability 
Standard that the Commission has approved. The approved revisions focus 
on mitigation risks posed by a coordinated attack on low-impact 
facilities. The Reliability Standard approved by this final rule is 
objective-based and provides requirements to address ongoing threats to 
the low impact BES Cyber Systems.
    The Reliability Standard approved by this final rule does not 
require responsible entities to submit any filings with either the 
Commission or NERC as the ERO. Responsible entities, however, will be 
required to maintain documentation adequate to demonstrate compliance 
with the Reliability Standard approved by this final rule. Commission 
and NERC staff conduct periodic audits of registered entities, and 
auditors rely on the entity's documentation in determining compliance 
with Reliability Standards. While registered entities retain 
flexibility on how they choose to demonstrate compliance, the 
Reliability Standard includes compliance measures, which provide 
examples of the type of documentation an entity may want to develop and 
maintain to demonstrate compliance. The reporting burden below is based 
on the compliance measurements provided in the Reliability Standard 
approved by this final rule. As of June 2025, the NERC Compliance 
Registry identifies approximately 1,673 unique U.S. entities that are 
subject to mandatory compliance with CIP Reliability Standards. 
Entities are allowed to choose their compliance approach to most 
efficiently meet the requirements of the Reliability Standards. All 
1,673 entities would need to conform to modifications in Reliability 
Standard CIP-003-11. Therefore, these entities will have an increased 
paperwork burden. Based on these assumptions, the estimated reporting 
burden is as follows:

                                            Total Changes Proposed by the NOPR in Docket No. RM25-8-000 \61\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annual
                                                         number of                                                 Total annual burden
                                           Number of     responses    Total number   Average burden & cost per    hours & total annual       Cost per
                                          respondents       per       of responses         response \62\                  cost            respondent ($)
                                                         respondent
                                                   (1)          (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)......................  (3) * (4) = (5).........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create one or more documented                    1,673            1           1,673  1 hr.; $97...............  1,673 hrs.; $162,281....             $97
 process(es) (R2).

[[Page 13956]]

 
R2, Attachment 1, Section 2, Physical            1,673            1           1,673  2 hrs.; $194.............  3346 hrs.; $324,562.....             194
 Security Controls.
R2, Attachment 1, Section 3,                     1,673            1           1,673  1hr.; $97................  1673 hrs.; $162,281.....              97
 Electronic Access Controls.
R2, Attachment 1, Section 3.1.........           1,673            1           1,673  5 hrs.; $485.............  8,365 hrs.; $811,405....             485
R2, Attachment 1, Section 3.1.1.......           1,673            1           1,673  2 hrs.; $194.............  3346 hr.; $324,562......             194
R2, Attachment 1, Section 3.1.2.......           1,673            1           1,673  20 hrs.; $1,940..........  33,460 hrs.; $3,245,620.           1,940
R2, Attachment 1, Section 3.1.3.......           1,673            1           1,673  60 hrs.; $5,820..........  100,380 hrs.; $9,736,860           5,820
R2, Attachment 1, Section 3.1.4.......           1,673            1           1,673  60 hrs.; $5,820..........  100,380 hrs.; $9,736,860           5,820
R2, Attachment 1, Section 3.1.5.......           1,673            1           1,673  1 hr.; $97...............  1,673 hrs.; $162,281....              97
R2, Attachment 1, Section 3.1.6.......           1,673            1           1,673  1 hr.; $97...............  1,673 hr.; $162,281.....              97
R2, Attachment 1, Section 3.2.........           1,673            1           1,673  1 hr.; $97...............  1,673 hrs.; $162,281....              97
Total burden for FERC-725B(5) under     ..............  ...........           1,673  .........................  257,642 hrs.;                     14,938
 CIP-003-11.                                                                                                     $24,991,274.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. The responses and burden hours for Years 1-3 will total 
respectively as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The paperwork burden estimate includes cost associated with 
the initial development of a policy to address the requirements.
    \62\ This burden applies in Year 1 to Year 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Year 1-3 total: 1,673 responses; 257,642 hours.
     The annual cost burden for each year One to Three is 
$8,330,425.
    28. Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical 
Infrastructure Protection (CIP).
    Action: Revision to FERC-725B information collection.
    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 final rule approves the 
Reliability Standard CIP-003-11. As discussed above, the Commission 
approves Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 pursuant to section 215(d)(2) 
of the Federal Power Act because it mitigates risks posed by a 
coordinated cyberattack on low-impact facilities, the aggregate impact 
of which could be much greater.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed 
Reliability Standard and made a determination that its action is 
necessary to implement section 215 of the Federal Power Act.
    29. 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: Kayla 
Williams, Office of the Executive Director, email: 
[email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].
    30. 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 the Office of Management and Budget should be submitted by 
email to: [email protected]. Comments submitted to the Office 
of Management and Budget should include Docket No. RM25-8 and OMB 
Control Number 1902-0248.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    31. 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.\63\ 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.\64\ The action proposed herein 
falls within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Reguls Implementing the Nat'l Env't Pol'y Act, Order No. 
486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 
(1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
    \64\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    32. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \65\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards 
develops the numerical definition of a small business.\66\ The SBA 
revised its size standard for electric utilities (effective March 17, 
2023) to a standard based on the number of employees, including 
affiliates (from the prior standard based on megawatt hour sales).\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \66\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \67\ Id. 121.201, Subsector 221 (Utilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. The SBA sets the threshold for what constitutes a small 
business. Under SBA's size standards, balancing authorities, generator 
operators, generator owners, reliability coordinators, transmission 
operators, and transmission owners all fall under the category of 
Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121), with 
a size threshold of 950 employees (including the entities and its 
associates). According to SBA guidance, the determination of 
significance of impact ``should be seen as relative to the size of the 
business, the size of the competitor's business, the number of filers 
received annually, and the impact this regulation has on larger 
competitors.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ U.S. Small Business Admin., A Guide for Government Agencies 
How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act 18 (Aug. 2017), 
https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. The Reliability Standard CIP-003-11 is expected to impose an 
additional

[[Page 13957]]

burden on 1,673 U.S. entities \69\ (reliability coordinators, generator 
operators, generator owners, transmission operators, balancing 
authorities, transmission owners, and certain distribution providers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 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 for each affected entity to conduct a 
comprehensive analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 1,673 affected entities discussed above, we estimate that 
406 entities are small entities and, therefore, will be affected by the 
proposed modifications to CIP-003-11. We estimate that each of the 406 
small entities to whom the proposed modifications of CIP-003-11 applies 
will incur one-time costs of approximately $19,000 per entity to 
implement this Standard, in addition to the ongoing paperwork burden 
reflected in the Information Collection Statement (a total of $14,938 
per entity over Years 1-3), giving a total one-time cost of $33,938 per 
entity. We do not consider the estimated one-time costs for these 406 
small entities to have a significant economic impact.
    35. The Reliability Standard approved in this final rule requires 
minimal action by registered entities subject to compliance. As a 
result, we certify that the Reliability Standard approved in this final 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.

VI. Document Availability

    36. 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).
    37. 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 excluding the last three digits of this document in 
the docket number field.
    38. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's 
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at 
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at 
[email protected].

VII. Regulatory Planning and Review

    39. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 
has determined this regulatory action is not a ``significant regulatory 
action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. 
Accordingly, OIRA has not reviewed this regulatory action for 
compliance with the analytical requirements of Executive Order 12866.

VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    40. This final rule is effective May 26, 2026. The Commission has 
determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and 
Budget, that this action is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 
351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: March 19, 2026.
Carlos D. Clay,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-05711 Filed 3-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P