What is the primary objective of **DORA**?

**The primary objective of DORA is to strengthen the digital operational resilience of the EU financial sector against ICT disruptions, including cyberattacks, system failures, and third-party risks.** Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 mandates proactive ICT risk management, incident reporting, resilience testing, and third-party oversight for 20 types of financial entities and critical ICT third-party providers (CTPPs), applying fully from January 17, 2025.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **DORA**?

**DORA legally requires compliance from approximately 22,000 EU-regulated financial entities across 20 types, including credit institutions, insurance undertakings, investment firms, payment institutions, and crypto-asset service providers, plus designated CTPPs.** It targets entities with significant ICT dependencies, with oversight extending to around 1,000+ EU ICT providers, enforced proportionally by size, complexity, and risk exposure.

Does **DORA** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**DORA does not mandate external audits or third-party certification but requires independent digital operational resilience testing, including annual basic tests and triennial threat-led penetration testing (TLPT) for critical entities.** Testing may involve external providers, with results reported to authorities; third-party oversight includes contractual audit rights for CTPPs, per Batch 2 RTS (July 17, 2024).

How often should an assessment for **DORA** be performed?

**DORA mandates annual basic ICT resilience testing, such as vulnerability assessments, and triennial advanced TLPT for designated critical entities.** ICT risk management frameworks require annual reviews, with incident response and third-party risk assessments conducted ongoing or as risks evolve, aligned with proportionality principles.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **DORA**?

**Non-compliance with DORA incurs administrative fines up to 2% of total global annual turnover for firms or €5 million (or 10% of annual salary) for individuals, imposed by ESAs or competent authorities.** Additional penalties include oversight fees up to €1 million annually for CTPPs, remediation orders, and reputational damage from public reporting.

An **DORA** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**Yes, DORA's ICT risk management, incident reporting, testing, and third-party oversight elements can be mapped to other international frameworks, leveraging existing controls for efficiency.** Financial entities often align DORA with prior EBA guidelines or sector-specific rules like Solvency II, using gap analyses against its RTS to demonstrate equivalence without dual certification.

What is the first step to begin implementing **DORA**?

**The first step to implement DORA is conducting a gap analysis of current ICT risk management practices against the ESAs' Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS), particularly Batch 1 (January 17, 2024) on frameworks, incidents, and third-party policy.** This identifies deficiencies in strategies, incident classification (e.g., major incidents impacting >5% users or €100,000+ losses), testing programs, and CTPP dependencies ahead of the January 17, 2025 deadline.

What is the primary objective of **CAA**?

**The primary objective of the Clean Air Act (CAA) is to protect public health and welfare from air pollution by regulating emissions from stationary and mobile sources.** Codified at 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq., it authorizes EPA to set **National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)** for six criteria pollutants (ozone, PM2.5/PM10, CO, Pb, SO2, NO2), enforce technology-based standards like **NSPS** (§111) and **NESHAPs/MACT** (§112), and require **State Implementation Plans (SIPs)** for attainment.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **CAA**?

**All operators of stationary and mobile sources emitting regulated pollutants must comply with CAA, with major sources defined as ≥100 tpy of any criteria pollutant or ≥10 tpy single/25 tpy total HAPs.** **Title V** mandates operating permits for major sources; **NSPS** and **NESHAPs** apply to new/modified sources in listed categories (e.g., nonmetallic mineral processing). States implement via SIPs; executives in manufacturing, energy, and transport bear accountability.

Does **CAA** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**No, CAA does not mandate external audits or third-party certification, but requires self-certification of **Title V** permit compliance and EPA-approved monitoring.** Facilities submit semiannual deviation reports and annual certifications; EPA may conduct audits using tools like ECMPS 2.0. Stack tests and **CEMS** data are electronically reported to CEDRI/WebFIRE for verification.

How often should an assessment for **CAA** be performed?

**CAA assessments must align with permit cycles: **Title V** renewals every 5 years, **RMPs** every 5 years, and infrastructure **SIPs** within 3 years of new NAAQS.** Ongoing: continuous **CEMS** monitoring, semiannual reports, and stack tests per permit schedules. Reassess after modifications triggering **NSR/PSD**.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **CAA**?

**Non-compliance with CAA triggers administrative penalties up to statutory maxima (e.g., $200,000 caps for some EPA actions), civil fines, and sanctions like 2:1 offsets or highway funding bans.** EPA issues **ACOs/APOs** (§113); DOJ pursues judicial actions; SIP failures lead to **FIPs**. Criminal liability applies for knowing violations.

An **CAA** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**Yes, CAA elements like NAAQS and technology standards map to frameworks such as EU Industrial Emissions Directive for **NSPS/MACT** equivalents.** **Title V** permits align with integrated permitting; **Title VI** stratospheric ozone rules implement Montreal Protocol. Mappings support cross-border compliance but require jurisdiction-specific adjustments.

What is the first step to begin implementing **CAA**?

**The first step is a comprehensive applicability determination using EPA's ADI Dashboard and process-level emissions inventory.** Screen for **Title V**, **NSPS**, **NESHAPs** triggers (e.g., major source thresholds), and NAAQS/SIP status; prioritize **CEMS/stack testing** per EPA hierarchy over AP-42 factors.

DORA vs CAA | GRADUM

Standards Comparison

DORA

Mandatory

2023

EU regulation for digital operational resilience in financial sector

CAA

Mandatory

1970

U.S. federal law for air pollution control and standards

Quick Verdict

DORA mandates ICT resilience for EU finance against cyber threats, while CAA enforces emission standards for US industries via permits and monitoring. Financial firms adopt DORA for compliance; manufacturers use CAA to avoid penalties and meet air quality goals.

Digital Operational Resilience

DORA

Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 Digital Operational Resilience Act

Cost

€€€€

Complexity

High

Implementation Time

12-18 months

Key Features

Mandates comprehensive ICT risk management frameworks
Enforces 4-hour major incident notifications
Requires triennial threat-led penetration testing
Establishes oversight of critical ICT providers
Harmonizes resilience across EU financial sector

Air Quality

CAA

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.)

Cost

€€€

Complexity

Medium

Implementation Time

18-24 months

Key Features

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and nonattainment planning
Title V operating permits consolidating requirements
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for stationary sources
NESHAPs/MACT for hazardous air pollutants

Detailed Analysis

A comprehensive look at the specific requirements, scope, and impact of each standard.

DORA Details

What It Is

DORA, formally Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, is an EU-wide regulation bolstering digital operational resilience in the financial sector against ICT disruptions like cyberattacks and third-party failures. Applicable from January 17, 2025, it covers 20 financial entity types and critical ICT third-party providers (CTPPs), using a risk-based, proportional approach to harmonize rules across 27 member states.

Key Components

**ICT Risk Management FrameworksStrategies for identifying, assessing, mitigating risks with annual reviews.
**Incident ReportingLog, classify, notify within 4 hours for major incidents impacting >5% users or €100k losses.
**Resilience TestingAnnual basic tests, triennial threat-led penetration testing (TLPT) for critical entities.
**Third-Party OversightDue diligence, contractual rights, ESAs supervision of CTPPs via Joint Examination Teams. Compliance enforced through RTS/ITS, no formal certification but audits and fines up to 2% turnover.

Why Organizations Use It

Mandated for ~22,000 entities to avoid penalties, mitigate cyber risks (74% firms affected), enhance systemic resilience post-incidents like CrowdStrike outage. Builds trust, drives cybersecurity investments (€10-15B EU-wide).

Implementation Overview

Conduct gap analyses, develop frameworks, implement testing/monitoring. Tailored by size/complexity; key activities include vendor mapping, automated tools. Applies EU-wide to financials; ongoing reviews ensure adherence.

CAA Details

What It Is

The Clean Air Act (CAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq., is a comprehensive U.S. federal statute establishing the national framework for air quality protection. Its primary purpose is safeguarding public health and welfare from outdoor air pollution through ambient standards and source controls. The cooperative federalism approach sets EPA national floors with state implementation.

Key Components

NAAQS for six criteria pollutants (ozone, PM, CO, Pb, SO2, NO2) with primary/secondary standards.
SIPs, NSPS, NESHAPs/MACT, Title V permits, NSR/PSD.
Built on technology-based and ambient outcome standards; no fixed control count, but layered programs.
Federally enforceable via permits; states handle SIPs/permitting.

Why Organizations Use It

Mandatory for emitters; drives compliance to avoid penalties, sanctions. Mitigates enforcement risk, supports ESG, enables permitting for expansions. Builds stakeholder trust via monitoring/reporting.

Implementation Overview

Phased: gap analysis (0-6 months), permitting/design (6-18), deployment/monitoring (ongoing). Applies to stationary/mobile sources nationwide; major facilities require Title V. No certification, but audits/enforcement ongoing. (178 words)

Key Differences

Aspect	DORA	CAA
Scope	Digital operational resilience in finance	Air quality and emission controls nationwide
Industry	EU financial entities and ICT providers	All industries with stationary/mobile sources
Nature	Mandatory EU regulation with ESAs oversight	Mandatory US federal statute with state SIPs
Testing	Annual basic tests, triennial TLPT	CEMS, stack tests, Title V monitoring
Penalties	Up to 2% global turnover fines	Civil penalties, sanctions, citizen suits

Scope

DORA

Digital operational resilience in finance

CAA

Air quality and emission controls nationwide

Industry

DORA

EU financial entities and ICT providers

CAA

All industries with stationary/mobile sources

Nature

DORA

Mandatory EU regulation with ESAs oversight

CAA

Mandatory US federal statute with state SIPs

Testing

DORA

Annual basic tests, triennial TLPT

CAA

CEMS, stack tests, Title V monitoring

Penalties

DORA

Up to 2% global turnover fines

CAA

Civil penalties, sanctions, citizen suits

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about DORA and CAA

DORA FAQ

CAA FAQ

You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5.1 Private Sector Tailoring Blueprint: First 5 Steps to Overlay-Driven Compliance with Infographic

Step-by-step blueprint for private sector NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5.1 tailoring using overlays for AI & supply chain risks. Infographic + first 5 steps for ROI-drive

CIS Controls v8.1 Metrics That Matter: KPIs, KRIs, and Dashboards for Board-Ready Cyber Reporting

Quantify CIS Controls v8.1 success with KPIs, KRIs & dashboards. Learn what to measure, calculations, and executive presentations linking security to business r

Proving CIS Controls v8.1 Works: A KPI & Evidence Framework for Board Reporting, Audits, and Continuous Assurance

Prove CIS Controls v8.1 effectiveness with KPI catalog, evidence checklist & reporting cadence. Ideal for board reports, audits & cyber-insurance. Measure outco

Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM

Transform your compliance journey with our AI-powered assessment platform

Assess your organization's maturity across multiple standards and regulations including ISO 27001, DORA, NIS2, NIST, GDPR, and hundreds more. Get actionable insights and track your progress with collaborative, AI-powered evaluations.

100+ Standards & Regulations

AI-Powered Insights

Collaborative Assessments

Actionable Recommendations

Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages

CSL (Cyber Security Law of China) vs ISO 28000

Discover CSL (Cyber Security Law of China) vs ISO 28000: Data localization vs supply chain resilience. Unlock compliance strategies for China market success now!

ISO 27001 vs U.S. SEC Cybersecurity Rules

Compare ISO 27001 vs U.S. SEC Cybersecurity Rules: Global ISMS framework meets U.S. regs for resilient compliance. Key differences, benefits & strategies—boost security now! (152 chars)

BRC vs ISO/IEC 42001:2023

Discover BRC vs ISO/IEC 42001:2023: Food safety rigor meets AI governance excellence. Compare clauses, audits, risks & benefits to select the optimal standard now.

DORA

CAA

Quick Verdict

DORA

Key Features

CAA

Key Features

Detailed Analysis

DORA Details

What It Is

Key Components

Why Organizations Use It

Implementation Overview

CAA Details

What It Is

Key Components

Why Organizations Use It

Implementation Overview

Key Differences

Scope

Industry

Nature

Testing

Penalties

Frequently Asked Questions

DORA FAQ

What is the primary objective of DORA?

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with DORA?

Does DORA require an external audit or third-party certification?

How often should an assessment for DORA be performed?

What are the consequences of non-compliance with DORA?

An DORA be mapped to other international frameworks?

What is the first step to begin implementing DORA?

CAA FAQ

What is the primary objective of CAA?

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with CAA?

Does CAA require an external audit or third-party certification?

How often should an assessment for CAA be performed?

What are the consequences of non-compliance with CAA?

An CAA be mapped to other international frameworks?

What is the first step to begin implementing CAA?

You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5.1 Private Sector Tailoring Blueprint: First 5 Steps to Overlay-Driven Compliance with Infographic

CIS Controls v8.1 Metrics That Matter: KPIs, KRIs, and Dashboards for Board-Ready Cyber Reporting

Proving CIS Controls v8.1 Works: A KPI & Evidence Framework for Board Reporting, Audits, and Continuous Assurance

Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM

Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages

CSL (Cyber Security Law of China) vs ISO 28000

ISO 27001 vs U.S. SEC Cybersecurity Rules

BRC vs ISO/IEC 42001:2023