+Artigo 52.o Procedimento
---+Artigo 52.o 1.
---+Artigo 52.o 2.
---+Artigo 52.o 3.
---+Artigo 52.o 4.
---+Artigo 52.o 5.
---+Artigo 52.o 6.
|
Artigo 52.o Procedimento
-
1. Visão geral
| Título |
Regulamentação |
|
Artigo 52.o 1.
|
Sempre que um modelo de IA de finalidade geral preencha a condição a que se refere o artigo 51.o, n.o 1, alínea a), o prestador em causa notifica a Comissão sem demora e, em qualquer caso, no prazo de duas semanas a contar da data em que preencheu esse requisito ou da data em que se soube que esse requisito vai ser preenchido. Essa notificação deve incluir as informações necessárias para demonstrar que o requisito em causa foi preenchido. Se a Comissão tomar conhecimento de um modelo de IA de finalidade geral que apresente riscos sistémicos dos quais não tenha sido notificada, pode decidir designá-lo como um modelo com risco sistémico.
|
|
Artigo 52.o 2.
|
O prestador de um modelo de IA de finalidade geral que preencha as condições a que se refere o artigo 51.o, n.o 1, alínea a), pode apresentar, com a sua notificação, argumentos suficientemente fundamentados para demonstrar que, excecionalmente, embora preencha esse requisito, o modelo de IA de finalidade geral não apresenta, devido às suas características específicas, riscos sistémicos e, por conseguinte, não deverá ser classificado como um modelo de IA de finalidade geral com risco sistémico.
|
|
Artigo 52.o 3.
|
Se concluir que os argumentos apresentados nos termos do n.o 2 não estão suficientemente fundamentados e que o prestador em causa não conseguiu demonstrar que o modelo de IA de finalidade geral não apresenta, devido às suas características específicas, riscos sistémicos, a Comissão rejeita esses argumentos e o modelo de IA de finalidade geral é considerado um modelo de IA de finalidade geral com risco sistémico.
|
|
Artigo 52.o 4.
|
A Comissão pode designar um modelo de IA de finalidade geral como apresentando riscos sistémicos, ex officio ou na sequência de um alerta qualificado do painel científico nos termos do artigo 90.o, n.o 1, alínea a), com base nos critérios estabelecidos no anexo XIII. A Comissão fica habilitada a adotar atos delegados nos termos do artigo 97.o para alterar o anexo XIII através da especificação e atualização dos critérios estabelecidos nesse anexo.
|
|
Artigo 52.o 5.
|
Mediante pedido fundamentado de um prestador cujo modelo tenha sido designado como modelo de IA de finalidade geral com risco sistémico nos termos do n.o 4, a Comissão tem em conta o pedido e pode decidir reavaliar se o modelo de IA de finalidade geral ainda pode ser considerado como apresentando riscos sistémicos com base nos critérios estabelecidos no anexo XIII. Um tal pedido deve conter razões objetivas, detalhadas e novas que tenham surgido desde a decisão relativa à designação. Os prestadores podem solicitar uma reavaliação decorridos no mínimo seis meses após a decisão relativa à designação. Se, na sequência da sua reavaliação, a Comissão decidir manter a designação de modelo de IA de finalidade geral com risco sistémico, os prestadores podem solicitar uma reavaliação decorridos no mínimo seis meses após essa decisão.
|
|
Artigo 52.o 6.
|
A Comissão assegura a publicação de uma lista de modelos de IA de finalidade geral com risco sistémico e mantém-na atualizada, sem prejuízo da necessidade de observar e proteger os direitos de propriedade intelectual e as informações comerciais de caráter confidencial ou segredos comerciais, em conformidade com o direito da União e o direito nacional.
|
,
1.1 Referências
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Normas relacionadas
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Normas relacionadas
Normas
| Fonte |
Requisito |
|
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.
|
|