+Artigo 45.o Transferências com base numa decisão de adequação
---+Artigo 45.o 1.
---+Artigo 45.o 2.
---+Artigo 45.o 3.
---+Artigo 45.o 4.
---+Artigo 45.o 5.
---+Artigo 45.o 6.
---+Artigo 45.o 7.
---+Artigo 45.o 8.
---+Artigo 45.o 9.

Artigo 45.o Transferências com base numa decisão de adequação

-

1. Visão geral

,
Artigo 45.o 1.
Pode ser realizada uma transferência de dados pessoais para um país terceiro ou uma organização internacional se a Comissão tiver decidido que o país terceiro, um território ou um ou mais setores específicos desse país terceiro, ou a organização internacional em causa, assegura um nível de proteção adequado. Esta transferência não exige autorização específica.
Artigo 45.o 2.

Ao avaliar a adequação do nível de proteção, a Comissão tem nomeadamente em conta os seguintes elementos:

a) 

O primado do Estado de direito, o respeito pelos direitos humanos e liberdades fundamentais, a legislação pertinente em vigor, tanto a geral como a setorial, nomeadamente em matéria de segurança pública, defesa, segurança nacional e direito penal, e respeitante ao acesso das autoridades públicas a dados pessoais, bem como a aplicação dessa legislação e das regras de proteção de dados, das regras profissionais e das medidas de segurança, incluindo as regras para a transferência ulterior de dados pessoais para outro país terceiro ou organização internacional, que são cumpridas nesse país ou por essa organização internacional, e a jurisprudência, bem como os direitos dos titulares dos dados efetivos e oponíveis, e vias de recurso administrativo e judicial para os titulares de dados cujos dados pessoais sejam objeto de transferência;

b) 

A existência e o efetivo funcionamento de uma ou mais autoridades de controlo independentes no país terceiro ou às quais esteja sujeita uma organização internacional, responsáveis por assegurar e impor o cumprimento das regras de proteção de dados, e dotadas de poderes coercitivos adequados para assistir e aconselhar os titulares dos dados no exercício dos seus direitos, e cooperar com as autoridades de controlo dos Estados-Membros; e

c) 

Os compromissos internacionais assumidos pelo país terceiro ou pela organização internacional em causa, ou outras obrigações decorrentes de convenções ou instrumentos juridicamente vinculativos, bem como da sua participação em sistemas multilaterais ou regionais, em especial em relação à proteção de dados pessoais.
Artigo 45.o 3.
Após avaliar a adequação do nível de proteção, a Comissão pode decidir, através de um ato de execução, que um país terceiro, um território ou um ou mais setores específicos de um país terceiro, ou uma organização internacional, garante um nível de proteção adequado na aceção do n.o 2 do presente artigo. O ato de execução prevê um procedimento de avaliação periódica, no mínimo de quatro em quatro anos, que deverá ter em conta todos os desenvolvimentos pertinentes no país terceiro ou na organização internacional. O ato de execução especifica o âmbito de aplicação territorial e setorial e, se for caso disso, identifica a autoridade ou autoridades de controlo a que se refere o n.o 2, alínea b), do presente artigo. O referido ato de execução é adotado pelo procedimento de exame a que se refere o artigo 93.o, n.o 2.
Artigo 45.o 4.
A Comissão controla, de forma continuada, os desenvolvimentos nos países terceiros e nas organizações internacionais que possam afetar o funcionamento das decisões adotadas nos termos do n.o 3 do presente artigo e das decisões adotadas com base no artigo 25.o, n.o 6, da Diretiva 95/46/CE.
Artigo 45.o 5.
A Comissão, sempre que a informação disponível revelar, nomeadamente na sequência da revisão a que se refere o n.o 3 do presente artigo, que um país terceiro, um território ou um ou mais setores específicos de um país terceiro, ou uma organização internacional, deixou de assegurar um nível de proteção adequado na aceção do n.o 2 do presente artigo, na medida do necessário, revoga, altera ou suspende a decisão referida no n.o 3 do presente artigo, através de atos de execução, sem efeitos retroativos. Os referidos atos de execução são adotados pelo procedimento de exame a que se refere o artigo 93.o, n.o 2.

Por imperativos de urgência devidamente justificados, a Comissão adota atos de execução imediatamente aplicáveis pelo procedimento a que se refere o artigo 93.o, n.o 3.
Artigo 45.o 6.
A Comissão inicia consultas com o país terceiro ou a organização internacional com vista a corrigir a situação que tiver dado origem à decisão tomada nos termos do n.o 5.
Artigo 45.o 7.
As decisões tomadas ao abrigo do n.o 5 do presente artigo não prejudicam as transferências de dados pessoais para o país terceiro, um território ou um ou mais setores específicos desse país terceiro, ou para a organização internacional em causa, nos termos dos artigos 46.o a 49.o.
Artigo 45.o 8.
A Comissão publica no Jornal Oficial da União Europeia e no seu sítio web uma lista dos países terceiros, territórios e setores específicos de um país terceiro e de organizações internacionais relativamente aos quais tenha declarado, mediante decisão, se asseguram ou não um nível de proteção adequado.
Artigo 45.o 9.
As decisões adotadas pela Comissão com base no artigo 25.o, n.o 6, da Diretiva 95/46/CE permanecem em vigor até que sejam alteradas, substituídas ou revogadas por uma decisão da Comissão adotada em conformidade com o n.o 3 ou o n.o 5 do presente artigo.

1.1 Referências

1.2 Requisitos identificados

1.3 Normas relacionadas

2. Requisitos identificados

Requisitos

3. Normas relacionadas

Normas
SCF Ad-Hoc Transfers

Description

Mechanisms exist to secure ad-hoc exchanges of large digital files with internal or external parties.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Data classification program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Content / DNS filtering

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

∙ Data classification program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Content / DNS filtering

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

∙ Data classification program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Content / DNS filtering

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

∙ Data classification program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Content / DNS filtering∙ Data governance program

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

∙ Data classification program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Content / DNS filtering∙ Data governance program

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

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with DCH domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Data management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Restrictions for ad-hoc data transfers are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards).

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to document where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and/or processed.

Level 3 Well Defined

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling 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 DCH 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 secure ad-hoc exchanges of large digital files with internal or external parties.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
SCF External Transfer of Sensitive / Regulated Data

Description

Mechanisms exist to restrict and govern the transfer of sensitive and/or regulated data:
(1) Cross-border; and/or
(2) Interorganizational.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Model contracts
∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)

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

∙ Model contracts
∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)

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

∙ Model contracts
∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)

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

∙ Model contracts
∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)

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

∙ Model contracts
∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)

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

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.

Level 3 Well Defined

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling 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 DCH 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 restrict and govern the transfer of sensitive and/or regulated data to third-countries or international organizations.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Data Classification & Handling (DCH) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
SCF Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Data privacy program

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

∙ Data privacy program

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

∙ Data privacy program

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

∙ Data privacy program

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

∙ Data privacy program

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 Well Defined

Privacy (PRI) 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 PRI 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 PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer management solution).
▪ 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 PRI 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 implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.

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 Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Data privacy program

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

∙ Data privacy program

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

∙ Data privacy program

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

∙ Data privacy program

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

∙ Data privacy program

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

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 Well Defined

Privacy (PRI) 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 PRI 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 PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer management solution).
▪ 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 PRI 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 implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.

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.