Crafting a national cybersecurity framework that empowers federal agencies with vital threat intelligence without stifling the very businesses that form the backbone of the economy is one of the most complex challenges of modern governance. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is currently navigating this intricate landscape, undertaking a crucial initiative to refine its cyber incident reporting rule by directly engaging with the private sector. This guide will walk through the critical aspects of this process, helping critical infrastructure leaders understand the stakes, the key points of debate, and how they can effectively contribute to shaping a regulation that is both strong and sustainable. The core of this effort is a delicate balance between gathering actionable intelligence to protect the nation and avoiding the imposition of crippling operational burdens on businesses of all sizes.
CISA’s current town hall tour and consultation process signal a collaborative, rather than prescriptive, approach to regulation. This presents a pivotal opportunity for industry leaders to influence the final form of a rule that will have far-reaching consequences. By understanding the history of the legislation, the specific areas CISA is re-evaluating, and the channels available for feedback, organizations can move from being passive subjects of regulation to active partners in its creation. This guide serves as a roadmap for that engagement, detailing the steps to comprehending the dialogue and making your organization’s voice heard.
The Genesis of CIRCIA Why This Balancing Act is Crucial
To fully grasp the significance of the current dialogue, it is essential to understand its origins in the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA), which was signed into law in 2022. The act mandated that CISA develop and implement a rule requiring critical infrastructure operators to report significant cyber incidents and ransomware payments to the federal government. The goal was to provide CISA with the data needed to spot emerging threats, identify widespread campaigns, and share defensive information across sectors, thereby strengthening the nation’s collective defense against sophisticated adversaries.
The balancing act became particularly tense following the release of a draft rule in April 2024. This initial proposal included a controversial 72-hour reporting deadline for what it termed “substantial cyber incidents.” Immediately, a chorus of concern arose from business groups and lawmakers. Critics argued that the definition of a “substantial” incident was overly broad and that the extensive information requirements were unfeasible to meet within a three-day window, especially while an organization is actively triaging a crisis. This pushback established the fundamental conflict driving CISA’s current consultation efforts: how to secure timely, useful data without disrupting an organization’s immediate response and recovery operations.
Deconstructing the Dialogue CISAs Key Areas for Industry Feedback
In response to the widespread feedback on its initial draft, CISA has transparently outlined the specific areas where it is seeking “specific, actionable improvements.” This deconstruction of the rule into its core components provides a clear framework for industry stakeholders to provide targeted and constructive input. The agency is not just asking for general opinions; it is requesting detailed suggestions on how to refine the regulatory language to create a more effective and less burdensome framework.
This structured approach allows businesses to focus their expertise on the issues that matter most to their operations. By breaking down the dialogue into distinct steps, from defining reporting mandates to clarifying enforcement and expanding the security perimeter, CISA has created a more accessible path for engagement. The following sections explore each of these key areas, offering a guide for leaders on where their feedback can have the most significant impact.
Step 1 Refining the Reporting Mandates
The most fundamental debate revolves around the “what” and “who” of the reporting rule. The initial draft prompted concerns that the regulation could apply too broadly, capturing minor incidents or overwhelming smaller businesses with compliance demands. CISA is now re-examining these core components to ensure the final rule focuses on the most critical threats and is appropriately scaled for the diverse entities it will cover. This step is about getting the foundation right, ensuring the data collected is valuable and the reporting population is correctly identified.
Industry feedback in this area is paramount because it directly influences the day-to-day operational impact of CIRCIA. By providing real-world examples and data-driven arguments, businesses can help CISA craft definitions and thresholds that align with both security objectives and business realities. This is the primary opportunity to shape the scope and practicality of the entire regulatory framework.
Defining Substantial What Information is Truly Necessary
At the heart of the debate is the definition of a “substantial cyber incident.” The initial draft’s broad language created uncertainty, leaving companies to wonder if a minor system outage or a contained malware infection would trigger a federal reporting requirement. CISA is now asking for direct feedback on what specific details and data points are truly necessary for an incident report to be useful for national security without becoming an exhaustive and burdensome checklist for the victim organization.
This discussion is a chance for the private sector to help CISA distinguish between the signal and the noise. Stakeholders can provide input on what information is realistically available within the first 72 hours of an incident versus what can only be determined after a more thorough forensic investigation. The goal is to establish a clear, tiered reporting structure where initial notifications contain essential, high-level details, with more comprehensive data provided as the investigation progresses.
Scoping the Rule Should Company Size Matter
Another major concern with the initial draft was its one-size-fits-all approach, which placed the same reporting expectations on a small local utility as it did on a multinational corporation. This raised alarms about the potential for disproportionate compliance costs to cripple smaller businesses, which often lack dedicated cybersecurity and legal teams. In response, CISA is now actively exploring whether company size, revenue, or number of employees should be a criterion for determining which entities fall under the reporting mandate.
This conversation is critical for ensuring the economic viability of small and medium-sized businesses that are part of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Industry leaders can contribute by proposing clear, easily applicable thresholds that would exempt smaller entities from the full weight of the rule while still ensuring that incidents at companies of any size that have a truly significant national impact are reported. This would help CISA focus its resources on the most systemic risks without inadvertently harming the smaller players essential to the economy.
Step 2 Clarifying Enforcement and Compliance
Beyond defining what to report, CISA is seeking clarity on how the rule will be enforced. A regulation is only as effective as its compliance mechanisms, but those mechanisms must be fair, transparent, and predictable. Businesses need to understand the consequences of non-compliance and the procedures that will govern CISA’s actions. This step focuses on the procedural and enforcement aspects of the rule, aiming to build trust between the agency and the private sector.
Establishing clear rules of the road for enforcement is crucial for fostering a collaborative environment. If businesses view the regulation as purely punitive, they may be less forthcoming with information. By providing input on these procedures, stakeholders can help shape an enforcement posture that encourages good-faith reporting and cooperation rather than an adversarial relationship.
The Subpoena Question Establishing Clear Procedures
One of the most sensitive areas of enforcement is CISA’s authority to issue subpoenas to compel information from organizations that it believes have failed to report a covered incident. While this authority is a necessary tool to ensure compliance, the private sector has raised valid concerns about its potential for misuse. Businesses fear vague or overly broad subpoenas that could disrupt operations or compromise sensitive proprietary data.
CISA is therefore seeking input on the protocols that should surround the use of subpoenas. This includes establishing clear standards for when a subpoena is warranted, defining the scope of information that can be requested, and creating a transparent process for companies to challenge or clarify a request. Feedback here can help ensure that this powerful enforcement tool is reserved for clear cases of non-compliance and is wielded with precision and fairness.
Step 3 Expanding the Security Perimeter
Modern digital infrastructure is not a collection of isolated systems but a deeply interconnected ecosystem. A vulnerability in a single piece of open-source software or a security failure at a third-party service provider can have cascading effects across an entire industry. Recognizing this reality, CISA is examining whether the reporting responsibility should extend beyond the organization that was directly impacted to include key players in the digital supply chain.
This step reflects a sophisticated understanding of contemporary cyber risk, but it also introduces significant complexity. Determining where responsibility lies in a multi-party incident is a difficult legal and technical challenge. The input from cloud vendors, managed service providers (MSPs), and their customers will be vital in creating a rule that accurately reflects the shared nature of cybersecurity in the supply chain.
The Vendor Dilemma Reporting on Open Source Software Incidents
The widespread reliance on open-source software is a cornerstone of modern technology, but it also presents a systemic risk. A single vulnerability discovered in a widely used open-source library can instantly expose thousands of companies. This raises a critical question CISA is now posing: should cloud vendors and MSPs, who build their services on top of this software, be required to report incidents related to these vulnerabilities, even if their own systems are not the primary target?
This is a complex issue of accountability and visibility. Mandating such reporting could provide CISA with an invaluable early warning system for large-scale threats like the Log4j vulnerability. However, it also places a significant new burden on vendors, who may not have full insight into how their customers are using the affected software. Industry feedback is needed to determine a practical and effective way to address this critical blind spot in the nation’s cyber defense.
Casting a Wider Net Identifying Overlooked Infrastructure Operators
Defining “critical infrastructure” is an ongoing challenge, as new technologies and business models constantly reshape the landscape of what is considered essential. CISA has developed comprehensive lists of covered entities based on existing sector definitions, but the agency acknowledges that these lists may not be exhaustive. There is a risk that certain categories of critical operators could inadvertently be left out of the reporting framework.
To close any potential gaps, CISA is making an open call to all sectors to help identify any critical operator categories that may have been missed. This is a proactive effort to ensure the final rule is as comprehensive as possible. Industry associations and sector-specific experts are uniquely positioned to provide this feedback, helping CISA cast a wider, more accurate net and ensure that all truly critical entities are included in this national security effort.
The Consultation Roadmap A Summary of CISAs Engagement Plan
CISA has established a highly structured and transparent process to gather this crucial feedback, ensuring that all interested parties have an opportunity to contribute. The agency’s engagement plan is built on a series of public forums designed to facilitate a broad and inclusive dialogue. This roadmap provides a clear overview of the channels through which critical infrastructure leaders can participate in refining the CIRCIA rule.
This multi-pronged approach demonstrates a commitment to incorporating a wide range of perspectives into the final regulation. The combination of sector-specific and general sessions, along with a commitment to public transparency, is designed to build confidence in the rulemaking process and produce a more effective and well-supported final rule.
Seven Town Halls: The core of the consultation consists of seven distinct town hall meetings. Five of these sessions are tailored to specific sectors, including Chemical and Energy; Manufacturing and Agriculture; Healthcare and Emergency Services; Communications and Financial Services; and Defense and IT. Two additional general sessions are open to all stakeholders, providing a forum for cross-sector concerns and those from organizations not covered in the specific meetings.
Structured Dialogue: To maximize participation and ensure a wide variety of voices are heard, each meeting is scheduled to last up to two hours. Individual speaking slots are kept brief, limited to approximately three minutes each. This format encourages concise, actionable feedback and prevents any single entity from dominating the conversation, allowing CISA to hear from a larger number of organizations.
Public Transparency: In a commitment to an open process, CISA will record and transcribe all seven town hall sessions. These official transcripts will be made publicly available in the rulemaking docket. This ensures that all feedback is part of the public record and allows stakeholders who could not attend to review the discussions. However, the agency has been clear that it will not make definitive policy commitments during these sessions.
Building on Past Feedback: This new round of consultations does not exist in a vacuum. It builds upon an extensive feedback collection process that has been underway for several years. CISA has already analyzed insights from over 130 comments submitted in response to an initial Request for Information, input from more than 700 attendees at earlier listening sessions, and nearly 300 public comments on the April 2024 draft rule, ensuring the current dialogue is informed and focused.
Beyond the Rulemaking The Broader Implications for Public Private Cybersecurity
The intensive effort to refine the CIRCIA rule is more than just a standard regulatory exercise; it represents a pivotal test case for the future of public-private cybersecurity partnerships in the United States. How CISA navigates this process and the final form the rule takes will set a powerful precedent for all subsequent federal cybersecurity regulations. It will signal whether the government’s approach will be one of rigid, top-down mandates or a more agile, collaborative model built on mutual trust and shared objectives.
The long-term challenge is creating regulations that can keep pace with the hyper-dynamic nature of cyber threats. A static rulebook quickly becomes obsolete in a world where adversaries constantly innovate. The success of CIRCIA will depend on its ability to foster, not hinder, the private sector innovation and operational agility that are essential for effective defense. CISA’s willingness to consider reopening the official public comment period based on the town hall feedback is a positive indicator, suggesting an adaptive regulatory posture that prioritizes getting the rule right over simply getting it done.
Forging a Path Forward The Shared Responsibility for National Security
In the end, the success of the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act depended on finding a workable compromise that served the dual imperatives of national security and economic vitality. The extensive consultation process initiated by CISA represented a significant and positive step toward achieving that delicate balance. By actively soliciting and listening to the concerns of the private sector, the agency demonstrated a commitment to collaborative governance, acknowledging that the nation’s cybersecurity is a shared responsibility.
The true measure of this effort, however, was reflected in the final rule. The willingness to listen was a crucial starting point, but the true test was whether that input was translated into a clear, fair, and practical regulation. The active participation of critical infrastructure leaders in the town halls and written feedback submissions proved instrumental. By taking ownership of their role in the process, they helped shape a regulatory framework that not only protected the nation but also enabled their businesses to continue to innovate and thrive in an increasingly complex digital world.
