+52. pants Procedūra
---+52. pants 1.
---+52. pants 2.
---+52. pants 3.
---+52. pants 4.
---+52. pants 5.
---+52. pants 6.
|
52. pants Procedūra
-
1. Pārskats
| Nosaukums |
Regulējums |
|
52. pants 1.
|
Ja vispārīga lietojuma MI modelis atbilst 51. panta 1. punkta a) apakšpunktā minētajam nosacījumam attiecīgais nodrošinātājs paziņo Komisijai nekavējoties un jebkurā gadījumā divu nedēļu laikā pēc tam, kad minētā prasība ir izpildīta vai kļūst zināms, ka tā tiks izpildīts. Minētajā paziņojumā iekļauj informāciju, kas nepieciešama, lai apliecinātu, ka attiecīgā prasība ir izpildīta. Ja Komisijai kļūst zināms par vispārīga lietojuma MI modeli, kas rada sistēmiskus riskus, par kuru tai nav paziņots, tā var nolemt to atzīt par modeli ar sistēmisku risku.
|
|
52. pants 2.
|
Tāda vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļa nodrošinātājs, kurš atbilst 51. panta 1. punkta a) apakšpunktā minētajiem nosacījumiem, var līdz ar paziņojumu iesniegt pietiekami pamatotus argumentus, lai apliecinātu, ka izņēmuma kārtā, lai arī tas atbilst minētajai prasībai, vispārīga lietojuma MI modelis savas konkrētās specifikas dēļ nerada sistēmiskus riskus un tādēļ nebūtu jākvalificē kā vispārīga lietojuma MI modelis ar sistēmisku risku.
|
|
52. pants 3.
|
Ja Komisija secina, ka argumenti, kas iesniegti, ievērojot 2. punktu, nav pietiekami pamatoti un attiecīgais nodrošinātājs nav spējis apliecināt, ka vispārīga lietojuma MI modelis savas konkrētās specifikas dēļ nerada sistēmiskus riskus, tā noraida minētos argumentus, un vispārīga lietojuma MI modeli uzskata par vispārīga lietojuma MI modeli ar sistēmisku risku.
|
|
52. pants 4.
|
Komisija var atzīt, ka vispārīga lietojuma MI modelis rada sistēmiskus riskus, ex officio vai pēc zinātniskās grupas kvalificēta brīdinājuma, ievērojot 90. panta 1. punkta a) apakšpunktu, balstoties uz kritērijiem, kas noteikti XIII pielikumā. Komisija tiek pilnvarota pieņemt deleģētos aktus saskaņā ar 97. pantu, lai grozītu XIII pielikumu, precizējot un atjauninot minētajā pielikumā noteiktos kritērijus.
|
|
52. pants 5.
|
Pēc nodrošinātāja, kura modelis, ievērojot 4. punktu, ir atzīts par vispārīga lietojuma MI modeli ar sistēmisku risku, pamatota pieprasījuma Komisija pieprasījumu ņem vērā un var lemt atkārtoti vērtēt, vai, pamatojoties uz XIII pielikumā noteiktajiem kritērijiem, joprojām var uzskatīt, ka vispārīga lietojuma MI modelis rada sistēmiskus riskus. Šādā pieprasījumā ietver objektīvus, detalizētus un jaunus iemeslus, kas radušies pēc lēmuma par atzīšanu. Nodrošinātāji var pieprasīt atkārtotu novērtēšanu agrākais sešus mēnešus pēc lēmuma par atzīšanu. Ja Komisija pēc atkārtotās novērtēšanas nolemj saglabāt atzīšanu par vispārīga lietojuma MI modeli ar sistēmisku risku, nodrošinātāji var pieprasīt atkārtotu novērtēšanu agrākais sešus mēnešus pēc minētā lēmuma.
|
|
52. pants 6.
|
Komisija nodrošina, ka tiek publicēts vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļu ar sistēmisku risku saraksts, un pastāvīgi atjaunina minēto sarakstu, neskarot nepieciešamību ievērot un aizsargāt intelektuālā īpašuma tiesības un konfidenciālu uzņēmējdarbības informāciju vai komercnoslēpumus saskaņā ar Savienības un valsts tiesību aktiem.
|
,
1.1 Atsauces
1.2 Identificētās prasības
1.3 Saistītie standarti
2. Identificētās prasības
3. Saistītie standarti
Standarti
| Avots |
Prasība |
|
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.
|
|