+Artikolu 41 Speċifikazzjonijiet komuni
---+Artikolu 41 1.
---+Artikolu 41 2.
---+Artikolu 41 3.
---+Artikolu 41 4.
---+Artikolu 41 5.
---+Artikolu 41 6.

Artikolu 41 Speċifikazzjonijiet komuni

-

1. Ħarsa ġenerali

,
Artikolu 41 1.

Il-Kummissjoni tista’ tadotta atti ta’ implimentazzjoni li jistabbilixxu speċifikazzjonijiet komuni għar-rekwiżiti stipulati fit-Taqsima 2 ta’ dan il-Kapitolu jew, kif applikabbli, għall-obbligi stipulati fit-Taqsimiet 2 u 3 tal-Kapitolu V meta jkunu ġew issodisfati l-kundizzjonijiet li ġejjin:

(a) 

il-Kummissjoni tkun talbet, skont l-Artikolu 10(1) tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1025/2012, organizzazzjoni Ewropea tal-istandardizzazzjoni waħda jew aktar biex tabbozza standard armonizzat għar-rekwiżiti stipulati fit-Taqsima 2 ta’ dan il-Kapitolu, jew, kif applikabbli, għall-obbligi stipulati fit-Taqsimiet 2 u 3 tal-Kapitolu V, u:

(i) 

it-talba ma tkunx ġiet aċċettata minn ebda waħda mill-organizzazzjonijiet Ewropej tal-istandardizzazzjoni; jew

(ii) 

l-istandards armonizzati li jindirizzaw dik it-talba ma jkunux tfasslu sal-iskadenza stipulata f’konformità mal-Artikolu 10(1) tar-Regolament (UE) 1025/2012; jew

(iii) 

l-istandards armonizzati rilevanti ma jindirizzawx biżżejjed it-tħassib dwar id-drittijiet fundamentali; jew

(iv) 

l-istandards armonizzati ma jkunux konformi mat-talba; u

(b) 

ma tkun ġiet ippubblikata l-ebda referenza għall-istandards armonizzati li jkopru r-rekwiżiti msemmija fit-Taqsima 2 ta’ dan il-Kapitolu jew, kif applikabbli, l-obbligi msemmija fit-Taqsimiet 2 u 3 tal-Kapitolu V, f’Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea f’konformità mar-Regolament (UE) 1025/2012 u l-ebda referenza bħal din ma tkun mistennija li tiġi ppubblikata fi żmien raġonevoli.

Meta tabbozza l-ispeċifikazzjonijiet komuni, il-Kummissjoni għandha tikkonsulta lill-forum konsultattiv imsemmi fl-Artikolu 67.

L-atti ta’ implimentazzjoni msemmija fl-ewwel subparagrafu ta’ dan il-paragrafu għandhom jiġu adottati f’konformità mal-proċedura ta’ eżami msemmija fl-Artikolu 98(2).
Artikolu 41 2.
Qabel ma tħejji abbozz ta’ att ta’ implimentazzjoni, il-Kummissjoni għandha tinforma lill-kumitat imsemmi fl-Artikolu 22 tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1025/2012 li hija tqis il-kundizzjonijiet stabbiliti fil-paragrafu 1 ta’ dan l-Artikolu li għandhom jiġu sodisfati.
Artikolu 41 3.
Is-sistemi tal-IA b’riskju għoli jew il-mudelli tal-IA bi skop ġenerali li jkunu konformi mal-ispeċifikazzjonijiet komuni msemmijin fil-paragrafu 1, jew partijiet minn dawk l-ispeċifikazzjonijiet, għandhom jiġu preżunti li huma konformi mar-rekwiżiti stipulati fit-Taqsima 2 ta’ dan il-Kapitolu jew, kif applikabbli, li huma konformi mal-obbligi msemmija fit-Taqsimiet 2 u 3 tal-Kapitolu V, sa fejn dawk l-ispeċifikazzjonijiet komuni jkopru dawk ir-rekwiżiti jew dawk l-obbligi.
Artikolu 41 4.
Meta jiġi adottat standard armonizzat minn organizzazzjoni Ewropea tal-istandardizzazzjoni u dan jiġi propost lill-Kummissjoni għall-pubblikazzjoni tar-referenza tiegħu f’Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea, il-Kummissjoni għandha tivvaluta l-istandard armonizzat f’konformità mar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1025/2012. Meta r-referenza għal standard armonizzat tiġi ppubblikata f’Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea, il-Kummissjoni għandha tħassar l-atti ta’ implimentazzjoni msemmija fil-paragrafu 1, jew il-partijiet minnhom li jkopru l-istess rekwiżiti stipulati fit-Taqsima 2 ta’ dan il-Kapitolu jew, kif applikabbli, l-istess obbligi stipulati fit-Taqsimiet 2 u 3 tal-Kapitolu V.
Artikolu 41 5.
Meta l-fornituri ta’ sistemi tal-IA b’riskju għoli jew ta’ mudelli tal-IA bi skop ġenerali ma jikkonformawx mal-ispeċifikazzjonijiet komuni msemmijin fil-paragrafu 1, huma għandhom jiġġustifikaw kif xieraq li jkunu adottaw soluzzjonijiet tekniċi li jissodisfaw ir-rekwiżiti msemmija fit-Taqsima 2 ta’ dan il-Kapitolu jew, kif applikabbli, li jikkonformaw mal-obbligi stipulati fit-Taqsimiet 2 u 3 tal-Kapitolu V sa livell mill-inqas ekwivalenti għalihom.
Artikolu 41 6.
Meta Stat Membru jqis li speċifikazzjoni komuni ma tissodisfax għalkollox ir-rekwiżiti stipulati fit-Taqsima 2 jew, kif applikabbli, li jikkonformaw mal-obbligi stipulati fit-Taqsimiet 2 u 3 tal-Kapitolu V, għandu jinforma lill-Kummissjoni dwar dan bi spjegazzjoni dettaljata. Il-Kummissjoni għandha tivvaluta dik l-informazzjoni u, jekk ikun xieraq, temenda l-att ta’ implimentazzjoni li jistabbilixxi l-ispeċifikazzjoni komuni kkonċernata.

1.1 Referenzi

1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati

1.3 Standards relatati

2. Rekwiżiti identifikati

Rekwiżiti

3. Standards relatati

Standards
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.