+Artikkel 52 Menetlus
---+Artikkel 52 1.
---+Artikkel 52 2.
---+Artikkel 52 3.
---+Artikkel 52 4.
---+Artikkel 52 5.
---+Artikkel 52 6.

Artikkel 52 Menetlus

-

1. Ülevaade

,
Artikkel 52 1.
Kui üldotstarbeline tehisintellektimudel vastab artikli 51 lõike 1 punktis a osutatud tingimusele, teavitab asjaomane pakkuja sellest komisjoni viivitamata ja igal juhul kahe nädala jooksul pärast selle nõude täitmist või teadasaamist, et nõue täidetakse. Kõnealune teade sisaldab teavet, mis on vajalik tõendamaks, et asjaomane nõue on täidetud. Kui komisjon saab teada üldotstarbelisest tehisintellektimudelist, millega kaasnevad süsteemsed riskid, millest teda ei ole teavitatud, võib ta otsustada liigitada selle süsteemse riskiga mudeliks.
Artikkel 52 2.
Artikli 51 lõike 1 punktis a osutatud nõudele vastava üldotstarbelise tehisintellektimudeli pakkuja võib koos teatega esitada piisavalt põhjendatud väited tõendamaks, et kuigi üldotstarbeline tehisintellektimudel vastab sellele nõudele, ei kujuta see erandkorras oma erijoonte tõttu süsteemseid riske ja seetõttu ei tuleks see klassifitseerida süsteemse riskiga üldotstarbeliseks tehisintellektimudeliks.
Artikkel 52 3.
Kui komisjon jõuab järeldusele, et lõike 2 kohaselt esitatud väited ei ole piisavalt põhjendatud ja asjaomane pakkuja ei suutnud tõendada, et üldotstarbeline tehisintellektimudel ei kujuta oma erijoonte tõttu süsteemseid riske, lükkab ta need väited tagasi ja üldotstarbelist tehisintellektimudelit käsitatakse süsteemse riskiga üldotstarbelise tehisintellektimudelina.
Artikkel 52 4.
Komisjon võib liigitada üldotstarbelise tehisintellektimudeli süsteemseid riske kujutavaks mudeliks ex officio või pärast teaduskomisjonilt artikli 90 lõike 1 punkti a kohase kvalifitseeritud hoiatusteate saamist, põhinedes XIII lisas sätestatud kriteeriumidele.

Komisjonil on õigus võtta kooskõlas artikliga 97 vastu delegeeritud õigusakte, et muuta XIII lisa, täpsustades ja ajakohastades selles lisas esitatud kriteeriume.
Artikkel 52 5.
Pakkuja, kelle mudel on liigitatud artikli 4 kohaselt süsteemse riskiga üldotstarbeliseks tehisintellektimudeliks, põhjendatud taotluse korral võtab komisjon taotlust arvesse ja võib otsustada uuesti hinnata, kas seda üldotstarbelist tehisintellektimudelit saab siiski pidada süsteemseid riske kujutavaks mudeliks, põhinedes XIII lisas toodud kriteeriumidele. Selline taotlus peab sisaldama objektiivseid, üksikasjalikke ja uusi põhjuseid, mis on esile kerkinud pärast liigitamisotsust. Pakkujad võivad taotleda uut hindamist kõige varem kuus kuud pärast liigitamisotsuse tegemist. Kui komisjon otsustab pärast uuesti hindamist säilitada mudeli liigitamise süsteemse riskiga üldotstarbeliseks tehisintellektimudeliks, võivad pakkujad taotleda uuesti hindamist kõige varem kuus kuud pärast kõnealuse otsuse tegemist.
Artikkel 52 6.
Komisjon tagab süsteemse riskiga üldotstarbeliste tehisintellektimudelite loetelu avaldamise ja ajakohastab seda, ilma et see piiraks vajadust järgida ja kaitsta intellektuaalomandi õigusi ja konfidentsiaalset äriteavet või ärisaladusi kooskõlas liidu ja riigisisese õigusega.

1.1 Viited

1.2 Tuvastatud nõuded

1.3 Seotud standardid

2. Tuvastatud nõuded

Nõuded

3. Seotud standardid

Standardid
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies Registration

Description

Mechanisms exist to maintain a current registration for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Determine whether any AI use requires registration (e.g., EU AI Act high-risk systems)

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

∙ Track AI registration obligations by jurisdiction in compliance checklist

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

∙ Register high-risk AI systems with relevant authorities as required

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

∙ AI registration compliance program
∙ Track registration requirements by jurisdiction

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

∙ Enterprise AI regulatory compliance platform
∙ Automated registration tracking
∙ EU AI Act database registration compliance

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

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) 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 AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT 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 AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ AAT is regarded as a technology and governed by the entity's existing IT governance practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide oversight of AAT-related activities. GRC functions are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

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 maintain a current registration for AAT with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.

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 AI & Autonomous Technologies Registration

Description

Mechanisms exist to maintain a current registration for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

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

∙ Determine whether any AI use requires registration (e.g., EU AI Act high-risk systems)

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

∙ Track AI registration obligations by jurisdiction in compliance checklist

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

∙ Register high-risk AI systems with relevant authorities as required

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

∙ AI registration compliance program
∙ Track registration requirements by jurisdiction

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

∙ Enterprise AI regulatory compliance platform
∙ Automated registration tracking
∙ EU AI Act database registration compliance

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

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments).
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) 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 AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT 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 AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ AAT is regarded as a technology and governed by the entity's existing IT governance practices.
▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide oversight of AAT-related activities. GRC functions are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

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 maintain a current registration for AAT with the appropriate governing body, as required by statutory or regulatory requirements.

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.