+40 straipsnis Darnieji standartai ir standartizacijos leidiniai
---+40 straipsnis 1.
---+40 straipsnis 2.
---+40 straipsnis 3.

40 straipsnis Darnieji standartai ir standartizacijos leidiniai

-

1. Apžvalga

,
40 straipsnis 1.
Preziumuojama, kad didelės rizikos DI sistemos ir bendrosios paskirties DI modeliai, atitinkantys darniuosius standartus ar jų dalis, kurių nuorodos paskelbtos Europos Sąjungos oficialiajame leidinyje pagal Reglamentą (ES) Nr. 1025/2012, atitinka šio skyriaus 2 skirsnyje nustatytus reikalavimus arba, jei taikytina, šio reglamento V skyriaus 2 ir 3 skirsniuose išdėstytus įpareigojimus, tokiu mastu, kokiu tie standartai apima tuos reikalavimus ar įpareigojimus.
40 straipsnis 2.
Vadovaudamasi Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1025/2012 10 straipsniu Komisija nedelsdama pateikia standartizacijos prašymus, apimančius visus šio skyriaus 2 skirsnyje nustatytus reikalavimus ir, kai taikytina, standartizacijos prašymus, apimančius šio reglamento V skyriaus 2 ir 3 skirsniuose išdėstytas pareigas. Standartizacijos prašyme taip pat prašoma parengti leidinius, susijusius su ataskaitų teikimo ir dokumentavimo procesais, siekiant pagerinti DI sistemų išteklių naudojimo efektyvumą, pavyzdžiui, sumažinti didelės rizikos DI sistemų energijos ir kitų išteklių suvartojimą per jų gyvavimo ciklą, taip pat leidinius, susijusius su efektyviu energijos vartojimu grindžiamu bendrosios paskirties DI modelių kūrimu. Rengdama standartizacijos prašymą Komisija konsultuojasi su Valdyba ir atitinkamais suinteresuotaisiais subjektais, įskaitant patariamąjį forumą.

Pateikdama standartizacijos prašymą Europos standartizacijos organizacijoms Komisija nurodo, kad standartai turi būti aiškūs, tarpusavyje derėti, be kita ko, su įvairiuose sektoriuose parengtais standartais, skirtais gaminiams, kuriems taikomi I priede išvardyti esami Sąjungos derinamieji teisės aktai, ir kad jais turi būti siekiama užtikrinti, kad Sąjungoje rinkai pateikiamos arba pradedamos naudoti didelės rizikos DI sistemos ar bendrosios paskirties DI modeliai atitiktų atitinkamus šiame reglamente nustatytus reikalavimus ar pareigas.

Remdamasi Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1025/2012 24 straipsniu Komisija prašo Europos standartizacijos organizacijų pateikti įrodymų, jog dedamos visos pastangos, kad būtų pasiekti šios dalies pirmoje ir antroje pastraipose nurodyti tikslai.

Komisija, vadovaudamasi Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentu (ES) Nr. 1025/2012 ( 1 ) ir nepagrįstai nedelsdama, paprašo Europos standartizacijos organizacijų parengti standartizacijos leidinius, įskaitant, kai tinkama, darniuosius standartus, kad būtų lengviau bendrai laikytis šio reglamento III skyriaus 2 ir 3 skirsniuose nustatytų reikalavimų ar pareigų ir šio reglamento I priede išvardytuose Sąjungos derinamuosiuose teisės aktuose nustatytų atitinkamų reikalavimų bei pareigų ir daryti atitikties jiems prezumpciją.
40 straipsnis 3.
Standartizacijos proceso dalyviai siekia skatinti investicijas ir inovacijas DI srityje, be kita ko, užtikrinant daugiau teisinio tikrumo, taip pat skatinti Sąjungos rinkos konkurencingumą bei augimą, padeda stiprinti pasaulinį bendradarbiavimą standartizacijos srityje ir rėmimąsi tais esamais tarptautiniais DI srities standartais, kurie atitinka Sąjungos vertybes, pagrindines teises ir interesus, ir stiprina įvairių suinteresuotųjų subjektų dalyvavimu grindžiamą valdymą, užtikrinant subalansuotą atstovavimą interesams ir veiksmingą visų atitinkamų suinteresuotųjų subjektų dalyvavimą, kaip numatyta Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1025/2012 5, 6 ir 7 straipsniuose.

1.1 Nuorodos

1.2 Nustatyti reikalavimai

1.3 Susiję standartai

2. Nustatyti reikalavimai

Reikalavimai

3. Susiję standartai

Standartai
SCF Statutory, Regulatory & Contractual Compliance

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the identification and implementation of relevant statutory, regulatory and contractual controls.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) solution (e.g., SCFConnect, SureCloud, Ostendio, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)

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

∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) solution (e.g., SCFConnect, SureCloud, Ostendio, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)

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

∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) solution (e.g., SCFConnect, SureCloud, Ostendio, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Steering committee

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

∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Steering committee

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

∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Steering committee

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

Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.

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 facilitate the identification and implementation of relevant statutory, regulatory and contractual controls.

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.