+Artikolu 80 Proċedura għat-trattament ta’ sistemi tal-IA kklassifikati mill-fornitur bħala mhux ta’ riskju għoli fl-applikazzjoni tal-Anness III
---+Artikolu 80 1.
---+Artikolu 80 2.
---+Artikolu 80 3.
---+Artikolu 80 4.
---+Artikolu 80 5.
---+Artikolu 80 6.
---+Artikolu 80 7.
---+Artikolu 80 8.

Artikolu 80 Proċedura għat-trattament ta’ sistemi tal-IA kklassifikati mill-fornitur bħala mhux ta’ riskju għoli fl-applikazzjoni tal-Anness III

-

1. Ħarsa ġenerali

,
Artikolu 80 1.
Meta awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq ikollha raġuni suffiċjenti biex tqis li sistema tal-IA kklassifikata mill-fornitur bħala mhux ta’ riskju għoli skont l-Artikolu 6(3) tkun ta’ bilħaqq ta’ riskju għoli, l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq għandha twettaq evalwazzjoni tas-sistema tal-IA kkonċernata fir-rigward tal-klassifikazzjoni tagħha bħala sistema tal-IA b’riskju għoli abbażi tal-kundizzjonijiet stipulati fl-Artikolu 6(3) u fil-linji gwida tal-Kummissjoni.
Artikolu 80 2.
Meta, waqt li tkun qed issir dik l-evalwazzjoni, l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq issib li s-sistema tal-IA kkonċernata tkun ta’ riskju għoli, hija għandha titlob mingħajr dewmien żejjed lill-fornitur rilevanti jieħu l-azzjonijiet kollha meħtieġa biex iġib is-sistema tal-IA konformi mar-rekwiżiti u mal-obbligi stabbiliti f’dan ir-Regolament kif ukoll jieħu azzjoni korrettiva xierqa fi żmien li tista’ tistabbilixxi l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq.
Artikolu 80 3.
Meta l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq tqis li l-użu tas-sistema tal-IA kkonċernata ma jkunx ristrett biss għat-territorju nazzjonali tagħha, hija għandha tinforma lill-Kummissjoni u lill-Istati Membri l-oħra mingħajr dewmien żejjed bir-riżultati tal-evalwazzjoni u bl-azzjonijiet li hija tkun talbet li jittieħdu mill-operatur.
Artikolu 80 4.
Il-fornitur għandu jiżgura li tittieħed l-azzjoni kollha meħtieġa biex is-sistema tal-IA ssir konformi mar-rekwiżiti u mal-obbligi stabbiliti f’dan ir-Regolament. Meta l-fornitur ta’ sistema tal-IA kkonċernata ma jġibx is-sistema tal-IA f’konformità ma’ dawk ir-rekwiżiti u mal-obbligi fiż-żmien imsemmi fil-paragrafu 2 ta’ dan l-Artikolu, il-fornitur għandu jkun soġġett għal multi f’konformità mal-Artikolu 99.
Artikolu 80 5.
Il-fornitur għandu jiżgura li tittieħed kull azzjoni korrettiva xierqa fir-rigward tas-sistemi tal-IA kkonċernati li huwa jkun qiegħed fis-suq tal-Unjoni.
Artikolu 80 6.
Meta l-fornitur tas-sistema tal-IA kkonċernat ma jiħux azzjoni korrettiva adegwata fiż-żmien imsemmi fil-paragrafu 2 ta’ dan l-Artikolu, għandu japplika l-Artikolu 79(5) sa (9).
Artikolu 80 7.
Meta, waqt li tkun qed issir l-evalwazzjoni skont il-paragrafu 1 ta’ dan l-Artikolu, l-awtorità tas-sorveljanza tas-suq tistabbilixxi li s-sistema tal-IA tkun ġiet ikklassifikata ħażin mill-fornitur bħala mhux ta’ riskju għoli sabiex tiġi evitata l-applikazzjoni tar-rekwiżiti fil-Kapitolu III, it-Taqsima 2, il-fornitur għandu jkun soġġett għal multi f’konformità mal-Artikolu 99.
Artikolu 80 8.
Meta jeżerċitaw is-setgħa tagħhom li jimmonitorjaw l-applikazzjoni ta’ dan l-Artikolu, u f’konformità mal-Artikolu 11 tar-Regolament (UE) 2019/1020, l-awtoritajiet tas-sorveljanza tas-suq jistgħu jwettqu kontrolli xierqa, filwaqt li jqisu b’mod partikolari l-informazzjoni maħżuna fil-bażi tad-data tal-UE msemmija fl-Artikolu 71 ta’ dan ir-Regolament.

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.
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.