+Artikel 41 Fælles specifikationer
---+Artikel 41 1.
---+Artikel 41 2.
---+Artikel 41 3.
---+Artikel 41 4.
---+Artikel 41 5.
---+Artikel 41 6.

Artikel 41 Fælles specifikationer

-

1. Oversigt

,
Artikel 41 1.

Kommissionen kan vedtage gennemførelsesretsakter om fastlæggelse af fælles specifikationer for kravene i dette kapitels afdeling 2 eller, alt efter hvad der er relevant, for forpligtelserne i kapitel V, afdeling 2 og 3, hvis følgende betingelser er opfyldt:

a) 

Kommissionen har i henhold til artikel 10, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) nr. 1025/2012 anmodet en eller flere europæiske standardiseringsorganisationer om at udarbejde en harmoniseret standard for kravene i dette kapitels afdeling 2 eller, hvis det er relevant, for forpligtelserne i kapitel V, afdeling 2 og 3, og:

i) 

anmodningen er ikke blevet imødekommet af nogen af de europæiske standardiseringsorganisationer, eller

ii) 

de harmoniserede standarder, der behandler den pågældende anmodning, er ikke blevet leveret inden for den frist, der er fastsat i overensstemmelse med artikel 10, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) nr. 1025/2012, eller

iii) 

de relevante harmoniserede standarder tager ikke i tilstrækkelig grad hensyn til de grundlæggende rettigheder, eller

iv) 

de harmoniserede standarder er ikke i overensstemmelse med anmodningen, og

b) 

ingen reference til harmoniserede standarder, der dækker de krav, der er omhandlet i dette kapitels afdeling 2, eller, hvis det er relevant, forpligtelserne i kapitel V, afdeling 2 og 3, er offentliggjort i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende i overensstemmelse med forordning (EU) nr. 1025/2012, og ingen reference af denne art forventes at blive offentliggjort inden for et rimeligt tidsrum.

Når Kommissionen udarbejder de fælles specifikationer, skal den høre det rådgivende forum, der er omhandlet i artikel 67.

De gennemførelsesretsakter, der er omhandlet i dette stykkes første afsnit, vedtages efter undersøgelsesproceduren, jf. artikel 98, stk. 2.
Artikel 41 2.
Inden Kommissionen udarbejder et udkast til gennemførelsesretsakt, underretter den det udvalg, der er omhandlet i artikel 22 i forordning (EU) nr. 1025/2012, om, at den anser betingelserne i nærværende artikels stk. 1 for opfyldt.
Artikel 41 3.
Højrisiko-AI-systemer eller AI-modeller til almen brug, som er i overensstemmelse med de fælles specifikationer, der er omhandlet i stk. 1, eller dele af disse specifikationer, formodes at være i overensstemmelse med kravene fastsat i dette kapitels afdeling 2 eller, alt efter hvad der er relevant, at overholde forpligtelserne omhandlet i kapital V, afdeling 2 og 3, for så vidt de nævnte fælles specifikationer omfatter disse forpligtelser.
Artikel 41 4.
Hvis en europæisk standardiseringsorganisation vedtager en harmoniseret standard og fremlægger denne for Kommissionen med henblik på offentliggørelse af referencen hertil i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende, skal Kommissionen foretage en vurdering af den harmoniserede standard i overensstemmelse med forordning (EU) nr. 1025/2012. Når referencen til en harmoniseret standard offentliggøres i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende, ophæver Kommissionen de gennemførelsesretsakter, der er omhandlet i stk. 1, eller dele deraf, der omfatter de samme krav, der er fastsat i dette kapitels afdeling 2 eller, hvis det er relevant, at de samme forpligtelser, der er fastsat i kapital V, afdeling 2 og 3.
Artikel 41 5.
Hvis udbydere af højrisiko-AI-systemer eller AI-modeller til almen brug ikke overholder de fælles specifikationer, der er omhandlet i stk. 1, skal de behørigt begrunde, at de har indført tekniske løsninger, der opfylder de krav, der er omhandlet i dette kapitels afdeling 2 eller, alt efter hvad der er relevant, overholder de forpligtelser, der er fastsat i kapital V, afdeling 2 og 3, i et omfang, som mindst svarer hertil.
Artikel 41 6.
Hvis en medlemsstat finder, at en fælles specifikation ikke fuldt ud opfylder kravene fastsat i afdeling 2 eller, alt efter hvad der er relevant, overholder forpligtelserne fastsat i kapital V, afdeling 2 og 3, underretter den Kommissionen herom med en detaljeret redegørelse. Kommissionen vurderer disse oplysninger og ændrer, hvis det er relevant, gennemførelsesretsakten om fastlæggelse af den pågældende fælles specifikation.

1.1 Referencer

1.2 Identificerede krav

1.3 Relaterede standarder

2. Identificerede krav

Krav

3. Relaterede standarder

Standarder
SCF Non-Conformity Oversight

Description

Mechanisms exist to identify and document instances of non-conformity with statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations, in order to develop appropriate risk mitigation actions.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity perform an informal annual review of existing compliance requirements and research evolving or new requirements.

Level 3 Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to document and review instances of non-compliance with statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations to develop appropriate risk mitigation actions.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.