Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

Regulators Approve Cybersecurity Incident Reporting Notification Rule (“CIRN”) for Banks

Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

Date: January 13, 2022

Key Contacts

Back
Regulators Approve Cybersecurity Incident Reporting Notification Rule (“CIRN”) for Banks

A Final Rule requiring banks to report certain cybersecurity incidents within 36 hours was approved by the FDIC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the OCC…

A Final Rule requiring banks to report certain cybersecurity incidents within 36 hours was approved by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). April 1, 2022, is the Rule’s effective date. According to the agencies, the new rule will “promote early awareness of emerging threats to banking organizations and the broader financial system,” as well as “help the agencies react to these threats before they become systemic.”

CIRN Rule Objectives

The Computer-Security Incident Notification Final Rule establishes computer-security incident notification requirements for banking organizations and their bank service providers. In support of the rule, the regulators note that computer-security incidents have become more common, particularly as cyberattacks targeting the financial services industry have increased in frequency and severity in recent years.  Cyber-attacks have included destructive malware or malicious software (cyberattacks), as well as nonmalicious failure of hardware and software, personnel errors, and other causes.

The trio of regulators also highlights that computer-security incidents can adversely affect a bank’s networks, data, and systems and, its ability to resume normal operations. They maintain that prompt incident notification will achieve early awareness of emerging threats to banks and the broader financial system, as well as capabilities to assess and respond to computer-security breaches.

Who Is Covered by the New Reporting Rule?

The Final Rule new requirements apply to banking organizations and their bank service providers as defined by the primary regulators.

  • For the OCC, “banking organizations” includes national banks, federal savings associations, and federal branches and agencies of foreign banks.
  • For the Board, “banking organizations” includes all U.S. bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies, state member banks, the U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations, and Edge and agreement corporations.
  • For the FDIC, “banking organizations” includes all insured state nonmember banks, insured state-licensed branches of foreign banks, and insured State savings associations.

The term “bank service provider” refers to a company or person that performs services for a banking organization that is subject to the Bank Service Company Act. According to the regulators, the notification requirement for bank service providers is important given that banking organizations have become increasingly reliant on third parties to provide essential services. “Such third parties may also experience computer-security incidents that could disrupt or degrade the provision of services to their banking organization customers or have other significant impacts on a banking organization,” the Final Rule states.

Incident Notification is Required within 36 Hours.

A banking organization must notify its primary federal regulator of any computer-security incident that rises to the level of a notification incident as soon as possible and no later than 36 hours after the banking organization determines that a notification incident has occurred

As defined by the Final Rule, a computer-security incident is an occurrence that results in actual harm to the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system or the information that the system processes, stores, or transmits. Meanwhile, a notification incident is a computer-security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded, or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, a banking organization’s:

  • Ability to carry out banking operations, activities, or processes, or deliver banking products and services to a material portion of its customer base, in the ordinary course of business;
  • Business line(s), including associated operations, services, functions, and support, that upon failure would result in a material loss of revenue, profit, or franchise value; or
  • Operations, including associated services, functions and support, as applicable, the failure or discontinuance of which would pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.

The Final Rule also requires a bank service provider to notify at least one bank-designated point of contact at each affected customer bank as soon as possible when it determines it has experienced a computer-security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded, or is reasonably likely to disrupt or degrade, covered services provided to the bank for four (4) or more hours. If the bank has not previously provided a designated point of contact, the notification must be made to the bank’s chief executive officer and chief information officer or to two individuals of comparable responsibilities.

The Rule Compliance Deadline is May 1, 2022.

Conclusions:

Banking organizations and bank service providers have approximately five (5) months to assess the institutions existing cybersecurity breach incident policies/procedures and training programs to assure compliance by Final Rule’s May 1, 2022 compliance deadline.  The two (2) critical components are:  timely incident notification and assessment of capabilities to respond to breaches and restore the organization’s capabilities.

If you have questions, please contact us

If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss these issues further,
please contact Paul A. Lieberman or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at (201) 896-4100.

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable? post image

Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]

Author: Chris Seelinger

Link to post with title - "Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?"
How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery post image

How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]

Author: Chris Seelinger

Link to post with title - "How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery"
The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore post image

The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore"
BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers post image

BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]

Author: Nicholas Wall

Link to post with title - "BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers"
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected? post image

IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]

Author: Michael Mietlicki

Link to post with title - "IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?"
Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next post image

Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.

Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.

Let`s get in touch!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. By providing a telephone number and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.
“If you would like to submit a file, please email it directly to info@sh-law.com.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!