+47 artikla EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutus
---+47 artikla 1.
---+47 artikla 2.
---+47 artikla 3.
---+47 artikla 4.
---+47 artikla 5.
|
47 artikla EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutus
-
1. Yleiskatsaus
| Otsikko |
Sääntely |
|
47 artikla 1.
|
Tarjoajan on laadittava kirjallinen koneluettava, fyysinen tai sähköisesti allekirjoitettu EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutus kullekin tekoälyjärjestelmälle ja pidettävä se kansallisten toimivaltaisten viranomaisten saatavilla 10 vuoden ajan sen jälkeen, kun suuririskinen tekoälyjärjestelmä on saatettu markkinoille tai otettu käyttöön. EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutuksessa on yksilöitävä suuririskinen tekoälyjärjestelmä, jota varten se on laadittu. Jäljennös EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutuksesta on pyynnöstä toimitettava asiaankuuluville kansallisille toimivaltaisille viranomaisille.
|
|
47 artikla 2.
|
EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutuksessa on ilmoitettava, että kyseinen suuririskinen tekoälyjärjestelmä täyttää tämän osaston 2 jaksossa vahvistetut vaatimukset. EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutuksen on sisällettävä liitteessä V esitetyt tiedot, ja se on käännettävä kielelle, jota niiden jäsenvaltioiden kansalliset toimivaltaiset viranomaiset, joissa suuririskinen tekoälyjärjestelmä asetetaan markkinoille tai saataville, voivat ymmärtää helposti.
|
|
47 artikla 3.
|
Jos suuririskisiin tekoälyjärjestelmiin sovelletaan muuta unionin yhdenmukaistamislainsäädäntöä, jossa myös edellytetään EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutusta, kaiken suuririskiseen tekoälyjärjestelmään sovellettavan unionin oikeuden osalta on laadittava yksi ainoa EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutus. Kyseisen vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutuksen on sisällettävä kaikki tiedot, jotka vaaditaan sen unionin yhdenmukaistamislainsäädännön yksilöimiseksi, johon kyseinen vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutus liittyy.
|
|
47 artikla 4.
|
Laatimalla EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutuksen tarjoaja ottaa vastuun 2 jaksossa vahvistettujen vaatimusten noudattamisesta. Tarjoajan on pidettävä EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutus tarvittaessa ajan tasalla.
|
|
47 artikla 5.
|
Siirretään komissiolle valta antaa delegoituja säädöksiä 97 artiklan mukaisesti liitteen V muuttamiseksi päivittämällä kyseisessä liitteessä vahvistetun EU-vaatimustenmukaisuusvakuutuksen sisältö, jotta siihen voidaan lisätä osatekijöitä, jotka ovat tarpeen tekniikan kehityksen huomioon ottamiseksi.
|
,
1.1 Viittaukset
1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset
1.3 Liittyvät standardit
2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset
Vaatimukset
| Lähde |
Vaatimus |
3. Liittyvät standardit
Standardit
| Lähde |
Vaatimus |
|
SCF
|
Declaration of Conformity
Description
Mechanisms exist to generate a declaration of conformity for each conformity assessment, where the document:
(1) Is concise;
(2) Unambiguously reflects the current status;
(3) Is physically or electronically signed; and
(4) Where possible, is machine readable.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Compliance checklist
∙ Annual compliance review
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Compliance management program
∙ Regulatory mapping
∙ Compliance calendar
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Compliance team
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated compliance monitoring
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
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.
▪ A formal report is generated for each security assessment/audit with sufficient details to understand the organization's ability to demonstrate conformity with its 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 generate a declaration of conformity for each conformity assessment, where the document:
(1) Is concise;
(2) Unambiguously reflects the current status;
(3) Is physically or electronically signed; and
(4) Where possible, is machine readable.
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
|
Declaration of Conformity
Description
Mechanisms exist to generate a declaration of conformity for each conformity assessment, where the document:
(1) Is concise;
(2) Unambiguously reflects the current status;
(3) Is physically or electronically signed; and
(4) Where possible, is machine readable.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Compliance checklist
∙ Annual compliance review
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Compliance management program
∙ Regulatory mapping
∙ Compliance calendar
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Compliance team
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated compliance monitoring
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
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.
▪ A formal report is generated for each security assessment/audit with sufficient details to understand the organization's ability to demonstrate conformity with its 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 generate a declaration of conformity for each conformity assessment, where the document:
(1) Is concise;
(2) Unambiguously reflects the current status;
(3) Is physically or electronically signed; and
(4) Where possible, is machine readable.
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
|
Declaration of Conformity
Description
Mechanisms exist to generate a declaration of conformity for each conformity assessment, where the document:
(1) Is concise;
(2) Unambiguously reflects the current status;
(3) Is physically or electronically signed; and
(4) Where possible, is machine readable.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Compliance checklist
∙ Annual compliance review
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Compliance management program
∙ Regulatory mapping
∙ Compliance calendar
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Compliance team
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated compliance monitoring
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
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.
▪ A formal report is generated for each security assessment/audit with sufficient details to understand the organization's ability to demonstrate conformity with its 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 generate a declaration of conformity for each conformity assessment, where the document:
(1) Is concise;
(2) Unambiguously reflects the current status;
(3) Is physically or electronically signed; and
(4) Where possible, is machine readable.
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
|
Declaration of Conformity
Description
Mechanisms exist to generate a declaration of conformity for each conformity assessment, where the document:
(1) Is concise;
(2) Unambiguously reflects the current status;
(3) Is physically or electronically signed; and
(4) Where possible, is machine readable.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Compliance checklist
∙ Annual compliance review
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Compliance management program
∙ Regulatory mapping
∙ Compliance calendar
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Compliance team
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated compliance monitoring
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
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.
▪ A formal report is generated for each security assessment/audit with sufficient details to understand the organization's ability to demonstrate conformity with its 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 generate a declaration of conformity for each conformity assessment, where the document:
(1) Is concise;
(2) Unambiguously reflects the current status;
(3) Is physically or electronically signed; and
(4) Where possible, is machine readable.
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.
|
|