+40. pants Saskaņoti standarti un standartizācijas nodevumi
---+40. pants 1.
---+40. pants 2.
---+40. pants 3.

40. pants Saskaņoti standarti un standartizācijas nodevumi

-

1. Pārskats

,
40. pants 1.
Tiek uzskatīts, ka augsta riska MI sistēmas, kas atbilst saskaņotiem standartiem vai to daļām, kuru atsauces ir publicētas Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī saskaņā ar Regulu (ES) Nr. 1025/2012, izpilda šīs nodaļas 2. iedaļā izklāstītās prasības vai – attiecīgā gadījumā – šīs regulas V nodaļas 2. un 3. iedaļā noteiktos pienākumus, ciktāl minētie standarti aptver minētās prasības vai pienākumus.
40. pants 2.
Komisija bez liekas kavēšanās saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) Nr. 1025/2012 10. pantu izdod standartizācijas pieprasījumus, kas aptver visas šīs nodaļas 2. iedaļā noteiktās prasības, un attiecīgā gadījumā standartizācijas pieprasījumus, kas aptver šīs regulas V nodaļas 2. un 3. iedaļā noteiktos pienākumus. Standartizācijas pieprasījumos pieprasa arī nodevumus par ziņošanas un dokumentēšanas procesiem nolūkā panākt lielāku MI sistēmu resursefektivitāti, piemēram, augsta riska MI sistēmas enerģijas patēriņa un citu resursu patēriņa samazināšanu tās darbmūža laikā, un par vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļu energoefektīvu izstrādi. Sagatavojot standartizācijas pieprasījumu, Komisija apspriežas ar MI padomi un attiecīgām ieinteresētajām personām, tostarp konsultatīvo forumu.

Izdodot standartizācijas pieprasījumu Eiropas standartizācijas organizācijām, Komisija konkrēti norāda, ka standartiem ir jābūt skaidriem, saskaņotiem, tostarp ar standartiem, kas izstrādāti dažādās nozarēs produktiem, uz kuriem attiecas I pielikumā uzskaitītie esošie Savienības saskaņošanas tiesību akti, un tiem jābūt vērstiem uz to, lai nodrošinātu, ka augsta riska MI sistēmas vai vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļi, kas laisti tirgū vai nodoti ekspluatācijā Savienībā, atbilst attiecīgajām šajā regulā noteiktajām prasībām vai pienākumiem.

Komisija pieprasa Eiropas standartizācijas organizācijām saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) Nr. 1025/2012 24. pantu sniegt pierādījumus par to, ka tās dara visu iespējamo, lai sasniegtu šā punkta pirmajā un otrajā daļā minētos mērķus.

Komisija saskaņā ar Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulu (ES) Nr. 1025/2012 ( 1 ) un bez liekas kavēšanās pieprasa Eiropas standartizācijas organizācijām izstrādāt standartizācijas dokumentus, tostarp attiecīgā gadījumā saskaņotos standartus, lai atvieglotu vienlaicīgu atbilstību šīs regulas III nodaļas 2. un 3. iedaļā izklāstītajām prasībām un pienākumiem un nodrošinātu atbilstības prezumpciju attiecībā uz prasībām, kas noteiktas Savienības saskaņošanas tiesību aktos, kuri uzskaitīti šīs regulas I pielikumā.
40. pants 3.
Standartizācijas procesa dalībnieki cenšas sekmēt investīcijas un inovāciju MI jomā, tostarp uzlabojot juridisko noteiktību, kā arī Savienības tirgus konkurētspēju un izaugsmi, un sekmē globālās sadarbības standartizācijas jomā stiprināšanu un to, ka tiek ņemti vērā pastāvošie starptautiskie standarti MI jomā, kas atbilst Savienības vērtībām, pamattiesībām un interesēm, un stiprina daudzpusēju ieinteresēto personu pārvaldību, nodrošinot līdzsvarotu interešu pārstāvību un visu attiecīgo ieinteresēto personu efektīvu līdzdalību saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) Nr. 1025/2012 5., 6. un 7. pantu.

1.1 Atsauces

1.2 Identificētās prasības

1.3 Saistītie standarti

2. Identificētās prasības

Prasības

3. Saistītie standarti

Standarti
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.