+Artikolu 79 Proċedura fil-livell nazzjonali dwar kif għandhom jiġu ttrattati sistemi tal-IA li jippreżentaw riskju
---+Artikolu 79 1.
---+Artikolu 79 2.
---+Artikolu 79 3.
---+Artikolu 79 4.
---+Artikolu 79 5.
---+Artikolu 79 6.
---+Artikolu 79 7.
---+Artikolu 79 8.
---+Artikolu 79 9.

Artikolu 79 Proċedura fil-livell nazzjonali dwar kif għandhom jiġu ttrattati sistemi tal-IA li jippreżentaw riskju

-

1. Ħarsa ġenerali

,
Artikolu 79 1.
Is-sistemi tal-IA li jippreżentaw riskju għandhom jinftiehmu bħala “prodott li jippreżenta riskju” kif definit fl-Artikolu 3, il-punt 19 tar-Regolament (UE) 2019/1020, sa fejn jippreżentaw riskji għas-saħħa jew is-sikurezza jew għad-drittijiet fundamentali tal-persuni.
Artikolu 79 2.
Meta l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq ta’ Stat Membru jkollha raġuni suffiċjenti biex tqis li sistema tal-IA tippreżenta riskju kif imsemmi fil-paragrafu 1 ta’ dan l-Artikolu, hija għandha twettaq evalwazzjoni tas-sistema tal-IA kkonċernata fir-rigward tal-konformità tagħha mar-rekwiżiti u l-obbligi kollha stabbiliti f’dan ir-Regolament. Għandha tingħata attenzjoni partikolari lis-sistemi tal-IA li jippreżentaw riskju għal gruppi vulnerabbli. Meta jiġu identifikati riskji għad-drittijiet fundamentali ta’ persuni, l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq għandha wkoll tinforma lill-awtoritajiet jew il-korpi pubbliċi nazzjonali rilevanti msemmija fl-Artikolu 77(1) u tikkoopera bis-sħiħ magħhom. L-operaturi rilevanti għandhom jikkooperaw kif meħtieġ mal-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq u mal-awtoritajiet jew il-korpi pubbliċi nazzjonali l-oħra msemmija fl-Artikolu 77(1).

Meta, waqt li tkun qed issir dik l-evalwazzjoni, l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq jew, fejn applikabbli l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq f’kooperazzjoni mal-awtorità pubblika nazzjonali msemmija fl-Artikolu 77(1), issib li s-sistema tal-IA ma tkunx konformi mar-rekwiżiti u l-obbligi stabbiliti f’dan ir-Regolament, hija għandha tirrikjedi mingħajr dewmien żejjed li l-operatur rilevanti jieħu l-azzjonijiet korrettivi xierqa kollha biex iġib is-sistema tal-IA konformi, biex jirtira s-sistema tal-IA mis-suq, jew biex isejjaħha lura fi żmien li tista’ tistabbilixxi l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq u f’kull każ mhux aktar tard minn 15-il ġurnata tax-xogħol, jew kif previst fil-liġi rilevanti tal-Unjoni dwar l-armonizzazzjoni.

L-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq għandha tinforma lill-korp notifikat rilevanti kif meħtieġ. L-Artikolu 18 tar-Regolament (UE) 2019/1020 għandu japplika għall-miżuri msemmija fit-tieni subparagrafu ta’ dan il-paragrafu.
Artikolu 79 3.
Meta l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq tqis li n-nonkonformità ma tkunx ristretta biss għat-territorju nazzjonali tagħha, din għandha tinforma lill-Kummissjoni u lill-Istati Membri l-oħra mingħajr dewmien żejjed bir-riżultati tal-evalwazzjoni u dwar l-azzjonijiet li hija tkun eżiġiet li jittieħdu mill-operatur.
Artikolu 79 4.
L-operatur għandu jiżgura li tittieħed kull azzjoni korrettiva xierqa fir-rigward tas-sistemi tal-IA kkonċernati li huwa jkun qiegħed fis-suq tal-Unjoni.
Artikolu 79 5.
Meta l-operatur ta’ sistema tal-IA ma jiħux azzjoni korrettiva adegwata fiż-żmien imsemmi fil-paragrafu 2, l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq għandha tieħu l-miżuri proviżorji xierqa kollha biex tipprojbixxi jew tirrestrinġi li s-sistema tal-IA ssir disponibbli fis-suq nazzjonali tagħha jew titqiegħed fis-servizz, biex tirtira l-prodott jew is-sistema tal-IA awtonoma mis-suq jew biex issejjaħha lura. L-awtorità għandha tinnotifika mingħajr dewmien żejjed lill-Kummissjoni u lill-Istati Membri l-oħra dwar dawk il-miżuri.
Artikolu 79 6.

In-notifika msemmija fil-paragrafu 5 għandha tinkludi d-dettalji disponibbli kollha, b’mod partikolari l-informazzjoni meħtieġa għall-identifikazzjoni tas-sistema tal-IA mhux konformi, l-oriġini tas-sistema tal-IA u l-katina tal-provvista, in-natura tan-nonkonformità allegata u tar-riskju involut, in-natura u d-durata tal-miżuri nazzjonali meħuda u l-argumenti mressqa mill-operatur rilevanti. B’mod partikolari, l-awtoritajiet tas-sorveljanza tas-suq għandhom jindikaw jekk in-nonkonformità tkunx dovuta għal xi waħda mir-raġunijiet li ġejjin:

(a) 

nonkonformità mal-projbizzjoni tal-prattiki tal-IA msemmija fl-Artikolu 5;

(b) 

nuqqas tas-sistema tal-IA b’riskju għoli li tissodisfa r-rekwiżiti stipulati fil-Kapitolu III, it-Taqsima 2;

(c) 

nuqqasijiet fl-istandards armonizzati jew fl-ispeċifikazzjonijiet komuni msemmija fl-Artikoli 40 u 41 li jagħtu preżunzjoni ta’ konformità;

(d) 

nonkonformità mal-Artikolu 50.
Artikolu 79 7.
L-awtoritajiet tas-sorveljanza tas-suq li ma jkunux l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq tal-Istat Membru li tniedi l-proċedura għandhom jinformaw lill-Kummissjoni u lill-Istati Membri l-oħra mingħajr dewmien żejjed dwar kull miżura adottata u dwar kull informazzjoni addizzjonali għad-dispożizzjoni tagħhom relatata man-nonkonformità tas-sistema tal-IA ikkonċernata, u, f’każ ta’ nuqqas ta’ qbil mal-miżura nazzjonali notifikata, dwar l-oġġezzjonijiet tagħhom.
Artikolu 79 8.
Jekk, fi żmien tliet xhur minn meta tasal in-notifika msemmija fil-paragrafu 5 ta’ dan l-Artikolu, ma tkun saret l-ebda oġġezzjoni jew minn awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq ta’ Stat Membru jew mill-Kummissjoni fir-rigward ta’ miżura proviżorja meħuda minn awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq ta’ Stat Membru ieħor, dik il-miżura għandha titqies iġġustifikata. Dan għandu jkun mingħajr preġudizzju għad-drittijiet proċedurali tal-operatur ikkonċernat f’konformità mal-Artikolu 18 tar-Regolament (UE) 2019/1020. Il-perjodu ta’ tliet xhur imsemmi f’dan il-paragrafu għandu jitnaqqas għal 30 jum fl-eventwalità ta’ nonkonformità mal-projbizzjoni tal-prattiki tal-IA msemmija fl-Artikolu 5 ta’ dan ir-Regolament.
Artikolu 79 9.
L-awtoritajiet tas-sorveljanza tas-suq għandhom jiżguraw li jittieħdu l-miżuri restrittivi xierqa fir-rigward tal-prodott jew tas-sistema tal-IA kkonċernati, bħalma huwa l-irtirar tal-prodott jew tas-sistema tal-IA mis-suq tagħhom, mingħajr dewmien żejjed.

1.1 Referenzi

1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati

1.3 Standards relatati

2. Rekwiżiti identifikati

Rekwiżiti

3. Standards relatati

Standards
SCF Non-Conformity Corrective Action

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Corrective action log (spreadsheet)
∙ Documented remediation plans for audit findings

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

∙ Corrective action register with remediation tracking
∙ Management review of open findings

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

∙ Formal corrective action plan process
∙ GRC platform for finding tracking and remediation
∙ Management review of open findings

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

∙ Enterprise corrective action management program
∙ GRC platform with workflow-driven remediation tracking
∙ Executive reporting on open findings

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

∙ Enterprise GRC platform for corrective action management
∙ Automated finding tracking and escalation workflows
∙ Board-level reporting on material findings

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.

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 take corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.

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.