+Artikkel 40 Harmoneeritud standardid ja standardimisdokumendid
---+Artikkel 40 1.
---+Artikkel 40 2.
---+Artikkel 40 3.

Artikkel 40 Harmoneeritud standardid ja standardimisdokumendid

-

1. Ülevaade

,
Artikkel 40 1.
Eeldatakse, et suure riskiga tehisintellektisüsteemid või üldotstarbelised tehisintellektimudelid, mis vastavad harmoneeritud standarditele või nende osadele, mille viited on avaldatud Euroopa Liidu Teatajas kooskõlas määrusega (EL) nr 1025/2012, on vastavuses käesoleva peatüki 2. jaos sätestatud nõuetega, või kui see on asjakohane, käesoleva määruse V peatüki 2. ja 3. jaos sätestatud kohustustega niivõrd, kuivõrd nimetatud standardid hõlmavad neid nõudeid või kohustusi.
Artikkel 40 2.
Komisjon esitab kooskõlas määruse (EL) nr 1025/2012 artikliga 10 põhjendamatu viivituseta standardimistaotlused, mis hõlmavad kõiki käesoleva peatüki 2. jaos sätestatud nõudeid ja vajaduse korral käesoleva määruse V peatüki 2. ja 3. jaos sätestatud kohustusi hõlmavaid standardimistaotlusi. Standardimistaotluses nõutakse ka aruandlus- ja dokumenteerimisprotsesside tulemusi, et parandada tehisintellektisüsteemide ressursinäitajaid, näiteks vähendada suure riskiga tehisintellektisüsteemi energia- ja muude ressursside tarbimist selle olelusringi jooksul, ning üldotstarbeliste tehisintellektimudelite energiatõhuse tulemusi. Standardimistaotluse koostamisel konsulteerib komisjon nõukoja ja asjaomaste sidusrühmadega, sealhulgas nõuandva koguga.

Euroopa standardiorganisatsioonidele standardimistaotluse esitamisel täpsustab komisjon, et standardid peavad olema selged ja sidusad, sealhulgas kooskõlas standarditega, mis on välja töötatud eri sektorites I lisas loetletud kehtivate liidu ühtlustamisõigusaktidega hõlmatud toodete jaoks, ning nende eesmärk on tagada, et liidus turule lastud või kasutusele võetud suure riskiga tehisintellektisüsteemid või üldotstarbelised tehisintellektimudelid vastavad käesolevas määruses sätestatud asjakohastele nõuetele või kohustustele.

Komisjon palub Euroopa standardiorganisatsioonidel esitada tõendid selle kohta, et nad on andnud endast parima käesoleva lõike esimeses ja teises lõigus osutatud eesmärkide saavutamiseks kooskõlas määruse (EL) nr 1025/2012 artikliga 2.

Komisjon taotleb kooskõlas Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrusega (EL) nr 1025/2012 ( 1 ) ja põhjendamatu viivituseta Euroopa standardiorganisatsioonidelt standardimisdokumentide, sealhulgas asjakohasel juhul harmoneeritud standardite väljatöötamist, et hõlbustada ühist vastavust käesoleva määruse III peatüki 2. ja 3. jaos sätestatud nõuetele või kohustustele ning käesoleva määruse I lisas loetletud liidu ühtlustamisõigusaktides sätestatud asjakohastele nõuetele ja kohustustele ning nende täitmise eeldust.
Artikkel 40 3.
Standardimisprotsessis osalejad püüavad edendada tehisintellekti investeerimist ja innovatsiooni, sealhulgas õiguskindluse suurendamise kaudu, ning liidu turu konkurentsivõimet ja kasvu, aitavad tugevdada ülemaailmset standardimisalast koostööd ja võtta arvesse tehisintellekti valdkonnas kehtivaid rahvusvahelisi standardeid, mis on kooskõlas liidu väärtuste, põhiõiguste ja huvidega, ning tõhustavad mitmeid sidusrühmi hõlmavat juhtimist, tagades huvide tasakaalustatud esindatuse ja kõigi asjaomaste sidusrühmade tõhusa osalemise kooskõlas määruse (EL) nr 1025/2012 artiklitega 5, 6 ja 7.

1.1 Viited

1.2 Tuvastatud nõuded

1.3 Seotud standardid

2. Tuvastatud nõuded

Nõuded

3. Seotud standardid

Standardid
SCF Statutory, Regulatory & Contractual Compliance

Description

Mechanisms exist to facilitate the identification and implementation of relevant statutory, regulatory and contractual controls.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) solution (e.g., SCFConnect, SureCloud, Ostendio, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)

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

∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) solution (e.g., SCFConnect, SureCloud, Ostendio, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)

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

∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) solution (e.g., SCFConnect, SureCloud, Ostendio, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Steering committee

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

∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Steering committee

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

∙ SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Steering committee

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.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity perform an informal annual review of existing compliance requirements and research evolving or new requirements.

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 facilitate the identification and implementation of relevant statutory, regulatory and contractual controls.

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.