Rule Requiring Banking Organizations to Provide Expedited Notice Proposed by Federal Banking Regulators

Jan 13, 2021

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Natasha G. Kohne, Rebecca Kocsis (Legal Project Analyst)

The proposed rule requires a banking organization experiencing a notification incident to notify their primary regulator, once the banking organization has determined in good faith that a notification incident has occurred. The notification would be required as soon as possible but no later than 36 hours after the incident that triggered the notification. The proposed rule would apply to multiple banking organizations that are overseen by the OCC, Board and FDIC, including national banks, saving associations and all U.S. bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies, as well as other entities.

The text of the proposed rulemaking defines a “computer-security incident” with two thresholds. The first threshold is an incident that “results in actual or potential harm to the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system or the information the system processes, stores, or transmits.” The second threshold “constitutes a violation or imminent threat of violation of security policies, security procedures, or acceptable use policies.” Under the proposed rule, if a banking organization experiences an event that meets either of these thresholds, it would need to provide notice within 36 hours.

The proposed rule also defines a “notification incident” as a computer-security incident that could disrupt or impair a banking organizations’ ability to carry out regular banking operations, result in a material loss of profit or review or pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States. To trigger a notification requirement, a computer-security incident must rise to the level of a notification incident. If the banking organization experiences a computer security incident that does not trigger a notification incident, a notice would not be required. The text of the proposed rule provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of events that would be considered a notification incident, including:

  1. Large-scale distributed denial of service attacks that disrupt customer account access for an extended period of time (e.g., more than four hours).
  2. A bank service provider that is used by a banking organization for its core banking platform to operate business applications is experiencing widespread system outages and recovery time is undeterminable.
  3. A failed system upgrade or change that results in widespread user outages for customers and bank employees.
  4. An unrecoverable system failure that results in activation of a banking organization’s business continuity or disaster recovery plan.
  5. A computer hacking incident that disables banking operations for an extended period of time.
  6. Malware propagating on a banking organization’s network that requires the banking organization to disengage all Internet-based network connections.
  7. A ransom malware attack that encrypts a core banking system or backup data.

The rule also outlines a requirement for bank service providers to notify at least two individuals at the banking organization to which they provide services immediately after experiencing a computer-security event. The notice trigger for a bank service provider would be a computer-security, rather than notification-incident. From here, the proposed rule would require the banking organization to analyze the computer-security event to determine if it met the qualifications for a notification incident. The proposed rule highlights the importance of communication between the two entities in the event of a computer-security event due to banking originations relying heavily on their service providers. Under the proposed rule, bank service providers required to provide notice are defined by the Bank Service Company Act (BSCA).

Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted within 90 days of the publication of the notice in the Federal Registrar. Comments can be made through the OCC’s Federal eRulemaking Portal, by mail or by hand delivery.

The proposed rule highlights the trend toward more rapid notification requirements as cybersecurity breaches and high-level events become more common. Banking organizations will need to be on alert for how to assess these types of events by ensuring a complete and comprehensive data privacy program. If you have any questions about your company’s compliance efforts and incident response plan, please contact a member of the Akin Gump Cybersecurity, Privacy and Data Protection team.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Data Dive

September 11,2025

The Department of Defense (DoD) recently published in the Federal Register its long-awaited final rule (the Rule) amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to formally implement the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program. The Rule, effective November 10, 2025, will move CMMC from a policy framework into binding contractual obligations for most defense contractors.

...

Read More

Data Dive

September 3, 2025

AI policy for the health and life sciences sector has continued to take shape. Building on recent activity, on July 23, 2025, the White House released its highly-anticipated AI Action Plan, setting forth the Trump Administration’s recommended policy actions to accelerate AI innovation and build American AI infrastructure. This Plan recommends policies that would promote AI adoption, the creation of “AI-ready” scientific datasets and the establishment of real-world AI evaluation systems by and for the health care and life sciences industries.

...

Read More

Data Dive

July 29, 2025

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld a 2024 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Order that significantly broadens telecommunications carriers’ breach notification obligations. This decision, issued on August 14, 2025, in Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC, mandates that carriers disclose breaches of any customer personally identifiable information (PII), not just customer proprietary network information (CPNI), and applies to both inadvertent and intentional breaches.2

...

Read More

Data Dive

March 3, 2025

On January 16, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Final Rule updating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection (COPPA) Rule, significantly expanding compliance obligations for online services that collect, use, or disclose personal information from children under 13.1 The amendments impose new restrictions on targeted advertising, add data security requirements, refine parental consent mechanisms, and introduce additional compliance measures.

...

Read More

Data Dive

February 21, 2025

On January 8, 2025, the DOJ published a final rule prohibiting and restricting certain transactions that could allow persons from countries of concern, such as China, access to bulk sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens or to U.S. government-related data (regardless of volume).

...

Read More

Data Dive

January 22, 2025

On January 17, 2025, days before the inauguration, former President Joe Biden issued an executive order titled Strengthening and Promoting Innovation in the Nation's Cybersecurity (EO 14144). Building on previous efforts, including Executive Order 14028, this directive seeks to bolster cybersecurity across federal systems, supply chains and critical infrastructure from adversarial nations, particularly from the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

...

Read More

Data Dive

January 10, 2025

UPDATE: The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) has extended the deadline for submitting public comments from January 14 to February 19, 2025, in response to the recent California wildfires. This extension aims to afford stakeholders additional time to provide comprehensive and detailed feedback, considering the significant challenges posed by the wildfires.

...

Read More

Data Dive

November 25, 2024

Treasury has issued a Final Rule to implement President Biden’s 2023 EO targeting U.S. investments in Chinese companies engaged in certain activities related to semiconductors, quantum computing or AI.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.