+Artikel 80 Procedure i tilfælde af AI-systemer, der af udbyderen er klassificeret som ikkehøjrisiko, i forbindelse med anvendelsen af bilag III
---+Artikel 80 1.
---+Artikel 80 2.
---+Artikel 80 3.
---+Artikel 80 4.
---+Artikel 80 5.
---+Artikel 80 6.
---+Artikel 80 7.
---+Artikel 80 8.
|
Artikel 80 Procedure i tilfælde af AI-systemer, der af udbyderen er klassificeret som ikkehøjrisiko, i forbindelse med anvendelsen af bilag III
-
1. Oversigt
| Titel |
Regulering |
|
Artikel 80 1.
|
Hvis en markedsovervågningsmyndighed har tilstrækkelig grund til at mene, at et AI-system, der af udbyderen er klassificeret som ikkehøjrisiko i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 3, faktisk er højrisiko, foretager markedsovervågningsmyndigheden en evaluering af det pågældende AI-system med hensyn til dets klassificering som et højrisiko-AI-system på grundlag af de betingelser, der er fastsat i artikel 6, stk. 3, og Kommissionens retningslinjer.
|
|
Artikel 80 2.
|
Hvis markedsovervågningsmyndigheden som led i denne evaluering konstaterer, at det pågældende AI-system er højrisiko, pålægger den uden unødigt ophold den relevante udbyder at foretage alle fornødne tiltag til at bringe AI-systemet i overensstemmelse med de krav og forpligtelser, der er fastsat i denne forordning, samt foretage fornødne korrigerende tiltag inden for en tidsfrist, som markedsovervågningsmyndigheden kan fastsætte.
|
|
Artikel 80 3.
|
Hvis markedsovervågningsmyndigheden konstaterer, at anvendelsen af det pågældende AI-system ikke er begrænset til medlemsstatens område, underretter den uden unødigt ophold Kommissionen og de øvrige medlemsstater om resultaterne af evalueringen og om de tiltag, den har pålagt udbyderen at foretage.
|
|
Artikel 80 4.
|
Udbyderen sikrer, at der foretages alle de nødvendige tiltag til at bringe AI-systemet i overensstemmelse med kravene og forpligtelserne i denne forordning. Hvis den pågældende udbyder af et AI-system ikke bringer AI-systemet i overensstemmelse med disse krav og forpligtelser inden for den tidsfrist, der er omhandlet i denne artikels stk. 2, straffes udbyderen med bøder i overensstemmelse med artikel 99.
|
|
Artikel 80 5.
|
Udbyderen sikrer, at der foretages alle fornødne korrigerende tiltag over for alle de pågældende AI-systemer, som denne har gjort tilgængelige EU-markedet.
|
|
Artikel 80 6.
|
Hvis udbyderen af det pågældende AI-system ikke foretager tilstrækkelige korrigerende tiltag inden for den tidsfrist, der er omhandlet i denne artikels stk. 2, finder artikel 79, stk. 5-9, anvendelse.
|
|
Artikel 80 7.
|
Hvis markedsovervågningsmyndigheden som led i evalueringen i henhold til denne artikels stk. 1 konstaterer, at AI-systemet er blevet fejlklassificeret af udbyderen som ikkehøjrisiko for at omgå anvendelsen af kravene i kapitel III, afdeling 2, straffes udbyderen med bøder i overensstemmelse med artikel 99.
|
|
Artikel 80 8.
|
Ved udøvelsen af deres beføjelse til at overvåge anvendelsen af denne artikel og i overensstemmelse med artikel 11 i forordning (EU) 2019/1020 kan markedsovervågningsmyndighederne foretage passende kontroller under særlig hensyntagen til oplysninger, der er lagret i den EU-database, der er omhandlet i nærværende forordnings artikel 71.
|
,
1.1 Referencer
1.2 Identificerede krav
1.3 Relaterede standarder
2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede standarder
Standarder
| Kilde |
Krav |
|
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.
|
|