Senate Bill S10701

                             
                     S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   10701
 
                             I N  S E N A T E
 
                            September 18, 2026
                                ___________
 
 Introduced  by  Sen.  FAHY  --  read twice and ordered printed, and when
   printed to be committed to the Committee on Rules
 
 AN ACT to amend the general business law,  in  relation  to  independent
   safety   evaluations,  monitoring,  reporting,  security,  mitigation,
   employee protections and enforcement relating to  frontier  artificial
   intelligence models

   THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
 
   Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the  "technical
 evaluation,  risk  monitoring,  incident notification, AI testing, over-
 sight, and response act" or the "TERMINATOR Act".
   § 2. Section 1420 of the general business law  is  amended  by  adding
 seven new subdivisions 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 to read as follows:
   17. "INDEPENDENT SAFETY EVALUATOR" MEANS A PERSON OR ENTITY THAT:
   (A)  POSSESSES  TECHNICAL  EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE APPROPRIATE TO THE
 EVALUATION OF FRONTIER ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS  AND  CATASTROPHIC
 RISK;
   (B) IS NOT AN AFFILIATE OF THE LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER WHOSE FRONTIER
 MODEL IS BEING EVALUATED;
   (C) HAS NO MATERIAL FINANCIAL INTEREST IN SUCH LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOP-
 ER  OTHER  THAN COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH AN
 EVALUATION REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE; AND
   (D) IS ACCREDITED OR OTHERWISE RECOGNIZED BY THE  OFFICE  PURSUANT  TO
 STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE OFFICE.
   18.  "MATERIAL  MODIFICATION" MEANS A MODIFICATION TO A FRONTIER MODEL
 OR THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH MODEL IS DEPLOYED THAT COULD  REASONABLY  BE
 EXPECTED  TO  MATERIALLY  INCREASE A CAPABILITY RELEVANT TO CATASTROPHIC
 RISK OR MATERIALLY REDUCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A SAFEGUARD  DESIGNED  TO
 PREVENT OR MITIGATE CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   19.  "SIGNIFICANT SAFETY INCIDENT" MEANS AN EVENT INVOLVING A FRONTIER
 MODEL THAT MATERIALLY INCREASES CATASTROPHIC RISK OR  PROVIDES  CREDIBLE
 EVIDENCE  OF  A  CAPABILITY,  VULNERABILITY,  FAILURE, CIRCUMVENTION, OR
 COMPROMISE OF A SAFETY, SECURITY, OR CONTROL MECHANISM THAT COULD  MATE-
 RIALLY  INCREASE  CATASTROPHIC  RISK. A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY INCIDENT NEED
 
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.
              

                                                            LBD16379-01-6
 S. 10701                            2
 
 NOT RESULT IN DEATH, BODILY INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, OR THE MATERIALIZA-
 TION OF CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   20.  "PRIVILEGED  FRONTIER  MODEL  ACCESS"  MEANS ACCESS TO A FRONTIER
 MODEL THAT MATERIALLY EXCEEDS ACCESS GENERALLY PROVIDED TO USERS OF SUCH
 MODEL AND THAT COULD MATERIALLY INCREASE  CATASTROPHIC  RISK,  INCLUDING
 ACCESS  TO  MODEL  WEIGHTS,  INTERNAL  MODEL CHECKPOINTS, A VERSION OF A
 MODEL WITH SAFEGUARDS DISABLED OR MATERIALLY REDUCED,  PRIVILEGED  FINE-
 TUNING  CAPABILITIES,  OR  ELEVATED  AUTHORITY TO ACCESS EXTERNAL TOOLS,
 SYSTEMS, CREDENTIALS, OR COMPUTING RESOURCES.
   21. "RISK-BASED CATASTROPHIC RISK MONITORING" MEANS A PROGRAM  REASON-
 ABLY  DESIGNED,  IN  LIGHT  OF THE CAPABILITIES, DEPLOYMENT CONTEXT, AND
 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE USES OF A FRONTIER MODEL, TO  DETECT  SIGNIFICANT
 SAFETY   INCIDENTS,   MATERIAL   CHANGES  IN  CAPABILITIES  RELEVANT  TO
 CATASTROPHIC RISK, AND MATERIAL FAILURES OR CIRCUMVENTION OF  SAFEGUARDS
 DESIGNED TO PREVENT OR MITIGATE CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   22. "TAMPER-EVIDENT" MEANS MAINTAINED USING TECHNICAL CONTROLS REASON-
 ABLY   DESIGNED  TO  PERMIT  DETECTION  OF  UNAUTHORIZED  ALTERATION  OR
 DELETION.
   23. "CATASTROPHIC HARM" MEANS DEATH, SERIOUS INJURY, PROPERTY  DAMAGE,
 OR LOSS OF PROPERTY OF THE NATURE AND MAGNITUDE DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION
 THREE  OF  THIS  SECTION ARISING FROM CONDUCT DESCRIBED IN SUCH SUBDIVI-
 SION.
   § 3. Paragraph (b) of subdivision 3 of section  1421  of  the  general
 business  law, as added by chapter 96 of the laws of 2026, is amended to
 read as follows:
   (b) Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or  a
 substantially  modified  version  of an existing frontier model, a large
 frontier developer shall include in the transparency report required  by
 paragraph (a) of this subdivision, summaries of all of the following:
   (i)   assessments  of  catastrophic  risks  from  the  frontier  model
 conducted pursuant to the large frontier developer's frontier AI  frame-
 work;
   (ii)  the  results  of  the assessments under subparagraph (i) of this
 paragraph;
   (iii) the extent to which third-party evaluators were involved; [and]
   (iv) other steps taken to fulfill the requirements of the frontier  AI
 framework with respect to the frontier model; AND
   (V)  A  SUMMARY  OF THE MATERIAL FINDINGS, LIMITATIONS, UNCERTAINTIES,
 IDENTIFIED   CAPABILITIES,   SAFEGUARD   PERFORMANCE,   AND   IDENTIFIED
 CATASTROPHIC  RISKS  CONTAINED  IN  ANY  INDEPENDENT  SAFETY  EVALUATION
 REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION FOURTEEN HUNDRED THIRTY OR FOURTEEN HUNDRED
 THIRTY-ONE OF THIS ARTICLE. NOTHING IN THIS SUBPARAGRAPH  SHALL  REQUIRE
 PUBLICATION  OF INFORMATION THAT MAY BE REDACTED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION
 FIVE OF THIS SECTION.
   § 4. Subdivision 2 of section 1422 of  the  general  business  law  is
 amended  by  adding a new paragraph (c), and three new subdivisions 3-a,
 3-b and 11 are added to read as follows:
   (C) A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL, TOGETHER WITH EACH SUMMARY OF AN
 ASSESSMENT OF CATASTROPHIC RISK TRANSMITTED PURSUANT  TO  THIS  SUBDIVI-
 SION, PROVIDE, TO THE EXTENT REASONABLY AVAILABLE, TECHNICAL INFORMATION
 REASONABLY  NECESSARY  FOR  THE  OFFICE  TO  EVALUATE THE BASIS FOR SUCH
 ASSESSMENT, INCLUDING, AS APPLICABLE, RELEVANT EVALUATION RESULTS, MONI-
 TORING OUTPUTS, MODEL OUTPUTS OR TRAJECTORIES, SAFETY OR SECURITY  TEST-
 ING RESULTS, AND OTHER TECHNICAL INFORMATION SUPPORTING SUCH ASSESSMENT.
   3-A.  (A) A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL REPORT A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY
 INCIDENT PERTAINING TO ONE OR MORE OF ITS FRONTIER MODELS TO THE  OFFICE
 S. 10701                            3
 
 AS  SOON  AS  PRACTICABLE  BUT  IN  NO EVENT LATER THAN SEVEN DAYS AFTER
 DETERMINING THAT SUCH INCIDENT HAS OCCURRED OR LEARNING FACTS SUFFICIENT
 TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT SUCH INCIDENT HAS OCCURRED.
   (B) NOTHING IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL ALTER A MORE EXPEDITIOUS REPORT-
 ING  REQUIREMENT  APPLICABLE  TO  A CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT PURSUANT TO
 SUBDIVISION THREE OF THIS SECTION.
   (C) INFORMATION  SUBMITTED  PURSUANT  TO  THIS  SUBDIVISION  SHALL  BE
 SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONFIDENTIALITY, DISCLOSURE, AND INFORMATION-SHARING
 PROTECTIONS  APPLICABLE  TO  CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT REPORTS UNDER THIS
 SECTION.
   (D) NO LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL KNOWINGLY STRUCTURE OR  ADMINIS-
 TER  ITS  MONITORING,  INCIDENT-REVIEW,  INVESTIGATION, OR RECORDKEEPING
 PRACTICES FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING THE DETECTION OR  REPORTING  OF  A
 SIGNIFICANT  SAFETY  INCIDENT OR CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT REQUIRED TO BE
 REPORTED UNDER THIS ARTICLE.
   3-B. ANY REPORT BY A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER OF A SIGNIFICANT  SAFETY
 INCIDENT  REQUIRED  PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION THREE-A OF THIS SECTION OR A
 CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION THREE OF  THIS
 SECTION SHALL INCLUDE, TO THE EXTENT REASONABLY AVAILABLE:
   (A) THE DATE AND NATURE OF THE INCIDENT;
   (B) THE FRONTIER MODEL OR MODELS INVOLVED;
   (C)  THE  CAPABILITY,  VULNERABILITY, SAFETY MECHANISM, SECURITY MECH-
 ANISM, OR CONTROL IMPLICATED BY THE INCIDENT;
   (D) THE LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER'S ASSESSMENT OF THE ACTUAL OR  POTEN-
 TIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE INCIDENT;
   (E)  CORRECTIVE  OR  MITIGATING  ACTION  TAKEN OR PLANNED BY THE LARGE
 FRONTIER DEVELOPER; AND
   (F) TECHNICAL INFORMATION  REASONABLY  NECESSARY  FOR  THE  OFFICE  TO
 ASSESS  THE  NATURE, CAUSE, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INCIDENT, INCLUDING,
 WHERE APPLICABLE, RELEVANT LOGS, MODEL OUTPUTS, AGENT TRAJECTORIES, TOOL
 CALLS, MONITORING OUTPUTS, SECURITY ALERTS, AND EVALUATION RESULTS.
   11. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBDIVISIONS  EIGHT  AND  NINE  OF  THIS  SECTION,
 COMPLIANCE  WITH  A FEDERAL LAW, REGULATION, OR GUIDANCE DOCUMENT DESIG-
 NATED BY THE OFFICE AS SATISFYING A  REPORTING  REQUIREMENT  UNDER  THIS
 SECTION  SHALL  NOT RELIEVE A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER OF THE OBLIGATION
 TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION  THREE-B  OF
 THIS  SECTION, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT INFOR-
 MATION HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED TO  THE  OFFICE  PURSUANT  TO  SUCH  FEDERAL
 REPORTING REGIME.
   §  5. The general business law is amended by adding seven new sections
 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435 and 1436 to read as follows:
   § 1430. INDEPENDENT FRONTIER MODEL  SAFETY  EVALUATIONS.  1.  A  LARGE
 FRONTIER  DEVELOPER  SHALL,  BEFORE  FIRST DEPLOYING A FRONTIER MODEL IN
 WHOLE OR IN PART IN THIS STATE, CAUSE AN INDEPENDENT SAFETY EVALUATOR TO
 CONDUCT A TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF SUCH MODEL'S CAPABILITIES, SAFEGUARDS,
 AND POTENTIAL TO MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   2. AN EVALUATION REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL INCLUDE TECH-
 NICAL TESTING, INCLUDING  ADVERSARIAL  TESTING  WHERE  APPROPRIATE,  AND
 SHALL SEPARATELY ASSESS WHERE APPLICABLE:
   (A) CAPABILITIES OF THE UNDERLYING FRONTIER MODEL;
   (B)  CAPABILITIES  REASONABLY ACCESSIBLE UNDER THE INTENDED DEPLOYMENT
 CONFIGURATION; AND
   (C) THE EFFECTIVENESS AND CIRCUMVENTION RESISTANCE OF SAFEGUARDS SEPA-
 RATING UNDERLYING CAPABILITIES FROM THOSE  REASONABLY  ACCESSIBLE  UNDER
 THE INTENDED DEPLOYMENT CONFIGURATION.
   3. AN EVALUATION SHALL ASSESS, AT A MINIMUM:
 S. 10701                            4
 
   (A)  CAPABILITIES  THAT  COULD  MATERIALLY  ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT,
 PRODUCTION, OR RELEASE OF CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, OR NUCLEAR
 WEAPONS;
   (B)  OFFENSIVE  CYBER CAPABILITIES THAT COULD MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO
 CATASTROPHIC RISK;
   (C) CAPACITY TO AUTONOMOUSLY REPLICATE, PROPAGATE, PERSIST, OR ACQUIRE
 COMPUTING RESOURCES OR CREDENTIALS;
   (D) CAPACITY  TO  EVADE,  CIRCUMVENT,  OR  SUBVERT  MATERIAL  CONTROLS
 IMPOSED BY A DEVELOPER OR USER;
   (E) CAPACITY TO ENGAGE IN MATERIAL DECEPTIVE BEHAVIOR, CONCEAL MATERI-
 AL  CAPABILITIES,  OR MANIPULATE OR EVADE SAFETY EVALUATIONS OR MONITOR-
 ING;
   (F) CAPACITY TO MATERIALLY ASSIST IN ITS OWN DEVELOPMENT  OR  IMPROVE-
 MENT,  OR THE DEVELOPMENT OR IMPROVEMENT OF ANOTHER FRONTIER MODEL, IN A
 MANNER THAT COULD MATERIALLY INCREASE CATASTROPHIC RISK;
   (G) EFFECTIVENESS AND RESILIENCE OF SAFEGUARDS DESIGNED TO PREVENT  OR
 MITIGATE  CATASTROPHIC RISK, INCLUDING SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SUCH SAFEGUARDS
 TO CIRCUMVENTION; AND
   (H) OTHER CAPABILITIES OR SAFEGUARDS RELEVANT TO CATASTROPHIC RISK  AS
 THE OFFICE MAY DESIGNATE BY REGULATION.
   THE  REQUIREMENTS  OF  PARAGRAPHS  (A) THROUGH (G) OF THIS SUBDIVISION
 CONSTITUTE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND MAY NOT BE WAIVED OR  ELIMINATED  BY
 REGULATION.
   4.  A  LARGE  FRONTIER  DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE THE INDEPENDENT SAFETY
 EVALUATOR ACCESS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO CONDUCT A MEANINGFUL  TECHNICAL
 EVALUATION,  INCLUDING,  WHERE  REASONABLY NECESSARY, ACCESS TO RELEVANT
 MODEL  CHECKPOINTS,  INTERFACES,  DOCUMENTATION,  TESTING  ENVIRONMENTS,
 FINE-TUNING CAPABILITIES, AND VERSIONS OR CONFIGURATIONS OF THE MODEL IN
 WHICH SAFEGUARDS ARE DISABLED OR MATERIALLY REDUCED.
   5.  THE  INDEPENDENT  SAFETY  EVALUATOR SHALL PREPARE A WRITTEN REPORT
 DESCRIBING THE METHODOLOGY, MATERIAL FINDINGS,  LIMITATIONS,  UNCERTAIN-
 TIES,  IDENTIFIED  CAPABILITIES,  SAFEGUARD  PERFORMANCE, AND IDENTIFIED
 CATASTROPHIC RISKS. AN UNREDACTED  COPY  SHALL  BE  TRANSMITTED  TO  THE
 OFFICE.
   6.  A  LARGE  FRONTIER  DEVELOPER SHALL PAY THE REASONABLE COSTS OF AN
 EVALUATION REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. COMPENSATION OF  AN  INDE-
 PENDENT  SAFETY  EVALUATOR  SHALL  NOT BE CONTINGENT UPON THE RESULTS OR
 CONCLUSIONS OF AN EVALUATION.
   7. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL REQUIRE OR AUTHORIZE  AN  INDEPENDENT
 SAFETY  EVALUATOR  TO CERTIFY THAT A FRONTIER MODEL IS SAFE OR FREE FROM
 CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   8. (A) THE OFFICE SHALL ESTABLISH  BY  REGULATION  MINIMUM  QUALIFICA-
 TIONS, TECHNICAL COMPETENCY, INDEPENDENCE, CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST, PROFES-
 SIONAL  CONDUCT  AND  ETHICAL STANDARDS, CYBERSECURITY, CONFIDENTIALITY,
 PERSONNEL-ACCESS, INFORMATION-STORAGE AND DESTRUCTION, AND  INCIDENT-RE-
 PORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEPENDENT SAFETY EVALUATORS.
   (B)  SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL ESTABLISH STANDARDS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO
 ENSURE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT  OF  INDE-
 PENDENT  SAFETY  EVALUATORS,  INCLUDING  STANDARDS  GOVERNING  FINANCIAL
 INTERESTS,  FINANCIAL  DEPENDENCE,  PRIOR  OR  CONCURRENT   PROFESSIONAL
 RELATIONSHIPS,  COMPENSATION  ARRANGEMENTS, AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
 COULD REASONABLY  BE  EXPECTED  TO  IMPAIR  AN  EVALUATOR'S  INDEPENDENT
 PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT.
   (C)  SUCH  REGULATIONS SHALL PROVIDE A MEANS FOR TEMPORARY RECOGNITION
 OF OTHERWISE QUALIFIED EVALUATORS WHERE  NECESSARY  TO  ENSURE  ADEQUATE
 EVALUATOR CAPACITY.
 S. 10701                            5
 
   9. THE OFFICE MAY REJECT OR REVOKE THE ACCREDITATION OR RECOGNITION OF
 AN INDEPENDENT SAFETY EVALUATOR UPON A FINDING THAT SUCH EVALUATOR LACKS
 THE TECHNICAL COMPETENCE, INDEPENDENCE, SECURITY PRACTICES, PROFESSIONAL
 INTEGRITY,  OR  OTHER  QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION,
 AND  MAY  REQUIRE A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER TO RETAIN A DIFFERENT INDE-
 PENDENT SAFETY EVALUATOR.
   10. THE OFFICE MAY DETERMINE  THAT  AN  INDEPENDENT  TECHNICAL  SAFETY
 EVALUATION  CONDUCTED  PURSUANT  TO  A FEDERAL LAW, REGULATION, OR OTHER
 GOVERNMENTAL REGULATORY REGIME SATISFIES ALL OR PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS
 OF THIS SECTION WHERE THE OFFICE  DETERMINES  THAT  SUCH  EVALUATION  IS
 SUBSTANTIALLY  EQUIVALENT  TO OR MORE STRINGENT THAN THE REQUIREMENTS OF
 THIS ARTICLE. THE OFFICE MAY  REQUIRE  SUPPLEMENTAL  EVALUATION  OF  ANY
 CAPABILITY,  SAFEGUARD, OR RISK REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THIS ARTI-
 CLE BUT NOT  ADEQUATELY  ASSESSED  BY  SUCH  EVALUATION.  AN  EVALUATION
 PERFORMED  SOLELY PURSUANT TO A DEVELOPER'S INTERNAL POLICY OR VOLUNTARY
 SAFETY FRAMEWORK SHALL NOT QUALIFY UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION SOLELY BECAUSE
 SUCH EVALUATION WAS CONDUCTED OR COMMISSIONED BY THE DEVELOPER.
   11. A FRONTIER MODEL DEPLOYED IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN THIS STATE BEFORE
 THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION SHALL RECEIVE THE EVALUATION REQUIRED
 BY THIS SECTION WITHIN ONE HUNDRED  EIGHTY  DAYS  AFTER  SUCH  EFFECTIVE
 DATE.
   §  1431.  MATERIAL  MODIFICATIONS  AND  REEVALUATION. 1. FOLLOWING THE
 INITIAL EVALUATION REQUIRED BY SECTION FOURTEEN HUNDRED THIRTY  OF  THIS
 ARTICLE,  A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL CAUSE AN ADDITIONAL INDEPEND-
 ENT SAFETY EVALUATION  TO  BE  CONDUCTED  BEFORE  DEPLOYING  A  MATERIAL
 MODIFICATION TO A FRONTIER MODEL IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN THIS STATE.
   2.  A  LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL MAKE AN INITIAL DETERMINATION AS
 TO WHETHER A PROPOSED MODIFICATION CONSTITUTES A MATERIAL  MODIFICATION.
 IN  MAKING  SUCH DETERMINATION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONSIDER THE CUMULA-
 TIVE EFFECT OF RELATED MODIFICATIONS MADE SINCE THE  MOST  RECENT  INDE-
 PENDENT  SAFETY EVALUATION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY INDIVIDUAL MODIFI-
 CATION WOULD  INDEPENDENTLY  CONSTITUTE  A  MATERIAL  MODIFICATION.  THE
 DEVELOPER SHALL DOCUMENT THE BASIS FOR ITS DETERMINATION AND RETAIN SUCH
 DOCUMENTATION FOR NOT LESS THAN FIVE YEARS.
   3.  THE OFFICE MAY REVIEW A DETERMINATION MADE PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION
 TWO OF THIS SECTION. WHERE THE OFFICE DETERMINES, BASED UPON  REASONABLE
 EVIDENCE,  THAT  A MODIFICATION CONSTITUTES A MATERIAL MODIFICATION, THE
 OFFICE MAY REQUIRE AN INDEPENDENT SAFETY EVALUATION.
   4. AN ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT SAFETY EVALUATION SHALL ALSO BE  REQUIRED
 WHERE:
   (A)  THE  DEVELOPER  DISCOVERS  A  MATERIAL NEW CAPABILITY RELEVANT TO
 CATASTROPHIC RISK;
   (B) CREDIBLE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES A  MATERIAL  CATASTROPHIC-
 RISK CAPABILITY NOT ADEQUATELY ASSESSED IN A PRIOR EVALUATION; OR
   (C)  A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY INCIDENT OR CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT REASON-
 ABLY INDICATES THAT A PRIOR EVALUATION  OR  EXISTING  SAFEGUARD  MAY  NO
 LONGER ADEQUATELY CHARACTERIZE OR MITIGATE CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   5. AN EVALUATION REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION FOUR OF THIS SECTION
 SHALL  BE  COMMENCED  AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE FOLLOWING THE OCCURRENCE OR
 DISCOVERY OF THE APPLICABLE CIRCUMSTANCE AND COMPLETED WITHIN A  REASON-
 ABLE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE OFFICE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE NATURE AND
 SEVERITY OF THE POTENTIAL CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   § 1432. POST-DEPLOYMENT MONITORING. 1. A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER THAT
 DEPLOYS  A FRONTIER MODEL IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN THIS STATE SHALL ESTAB-
 LISH, IMPLEMENT, AND MAINTAIN  RISK-BASED  CATASTROPHIC-RISK  MONITORING
 S. 10701                            6
 
 FOR  SUCH MODEL TO THE EXTENT THE DEVELOPER MAINTAINS REASONABLE TECHNI-
 CAL OR OPERATIONAL CONTROL OVER THE MODEL OR DEPLOYMENT.
   2.  SUCH  MONITORING  SHALL,  TO  THE  EXTENT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE AND
 REASONABLY NECESSARY IN LIGHT OF THE CAPABILITIES AND DEPLOYMENT CONTEXT
 OF THE MODEL, BE DESIGNED TO DETECT CONDUCT OR EVENTS RELEVANT TO  IDEN-
 TIFYING  A  SIGNIFICANT  SAFETY  INCIDENT,  CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT, OR
 MATERIAL CHANGE IN CATASTROPHIC RISK, INCLUDING:
   (A) ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT SAFEGUARDS DESIGNED TO PREVENT OR  MITIGATE
 CATASTROPHIC RISK;
   (B) ANOMALOUS AUTONOMOUS BEHAVIOR;
   (C)  UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR USE OF EXTERNAL TOOLS, SYSTEMS, CREDEN-
 TIALS, OR COMPUTING RESOURCES;
   (D) UNAUTHORIZED REPLICATION, PROPAGATION, OR PERSISTENCE;
   (E) MATERIAL DECEPTIVE BEHAVIOR DIRECTED AT  SAFETY  CONTROLS,  EVALU-
 ATIONS, OR MONITORING;
   (F) MATERIAL MODEL-WEIGHT SECURITY INCIDENTS; AND
   (G) MATERIAL CHANGES IN CAPABILITIES RELEVANT TO CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   3.  MONITORING CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL, TO THE EXTENT
 REASONABLY FEASIBLE CONSISTENT WITH THE EFFECTIVE DETECTION AND INVESTI-
 GATION OF CATASTROPHIC RISK, MINIMIZE THE COLLECTION  AND  RETENTION  OF
 PERSONALLY   IDENTIFIABLE   INFORMATION   AND   ORDINARY  USER  PROMPTS,
 RESPONSES, AND COMMUNICATIONS UNRELATED TO CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   4. THE OFFICE MAY PROMULGATE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING MINIMUM PERFORM-
 ANCE, DOCUMENTATION, DATA-MINIMIZATION, SECURITY,  AND  REVIEW  REQUIRE-
 MENTS  FOR  MONITORING  REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, PROVIDED THAT
 SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL BE RISK-BASED AND PROPORTIONATE TO THE  CAPABILI-
 TIES AND DEPLOYMENT CONTEXT OF A FRONTIER MODEL.
   5.  NOTHING  IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE GENERALIZED
 MONITORING, LOGGING, OR  RETENTION  OF  THE  CONTENT  OF  ORDINARY  USER
 PROMPTS, RESPONSES, OR COMMUNICATIONS.
   6. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL REQUIRE A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER TO
 MONITOR  AN  INDEPENDENTLY  CONTROLLED  COPY OR DERIVATIVE OF A FRONTIER
 MODEL AFTER MODEL WEIGHTS HAVE BEEN  LAWFULLY  TRANSFERRED  OR  PUBLICLY
 RELEASED  WHERE  THE DEVELOPER NO LONGER RETAINS REASONABLE TECHNICAL OR
 OPERATIONAL CONTROL OVER SUCH COPY  OR  DERIVATIVE.    NOTHING  IN  THIS
 SUBDIVISION  SHALL  LIMIT  ANY  OBLIGATION APPLICABLE TO THE DECISION TO
 RELEASE OR TRANSFER MODEL WEIGHTS UNDER THIS ARTICLE.
   § 1433. TAMPER-EVIDENT SAFETY RECORDS. 1. A LARGE  FRONTIER  DEVELOPER
 SHALL  CREATE  AND  MAINTAIN TAMPER-EVIDENT RECORDS SUFFICIENT TO RECON-
 STRUCT MATERIAL ACTIONS RELEVANT TO CATASTROPHIC-RISK SAFETY OR  SECURI-
 TY, INCLUDING:
   (A) ACCESS TO, COPYING OF, OR TRANSFER OF MODEL WEIGHTS;
   (B)   MATERIAL  MODIFICATION,  DISABLING,  OR  REMOVAL  OF  SAFEGUARDS
 DESIGNED TO PREVENT OR MITIGATE CATASTROPHIC RISK;
   (C) DEPLOYMENT OR USE OF A VERSION  OR  CONFIGURATION  OF  A  FRONTIER
 MODEL WITH MATERIALLY REDUCED SAFEGUARDS;
   (D) PRIVILEGED FRONTIER MODEL ACCESS;
   (E)  MATERIAL  CHANGES  TO  A  FRONTIER  MODEL'S  AUTHORITY  TO ACCESS
 EXTERNAL TOOLS, SYSTEMS, CREDENTIALS, OR COMPUTING RESOURCES; AND
   (F) MATERIAL SAFETY OR SECURITY ALERTS AND ACTIONS TAKEN  IN  RESPONSE
 THERETO.
   2. RECORDS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE RETAINED FOR NOT
 LESS THAN FIVE YEARS AND SHALL BE PROTECTED USING REASONABLE ADMINISTRA-
 TIVE,  TECHNICAL,  AND  PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS,
 USE, ALTERATION, DISCLOSURE, OR DESTRUCTION.
 S. 10701                            7
 
   3. SUCH RECORDS SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE  TO  THE  OFFICE  OR  ATTORNEY
 GENERAL UPON REQUEST WHERE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO INVESTIGATE OR VERIFY
 COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE.
   4.  THE  OFFICE  MAY  ESTABLISH  BY  REGULATION  MINIMUM  SECURITY AND
 ACCESS-CONTROL  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  RECORDS  REQUIRED  PURSUANT  TO  THIS
 SECTION.
   5.  NOTHING  IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL REQUIRE THE LOGGING OR RETENTION OF
 THE CONTENT OF ORDINARY USER PROMPTS, RESPONSES, OR COMMUNICATIONS SOLE-
 LY FOR PURPOSES OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION.
   § 1434. PRIVILEGED FRONTIER MODEL ACCESS AND MODEL-WEIGHT RELEASE.  1.
 A LARGE FRONTIER  DEVELOPER  THAT  PROVIDES  PRIVILEGED  FRONTIER  MODEL
 ACCESS  SHALL  ESTABLISH,  IMPLEMENT,  AND  MAINTAIN  A WRITTEN SECURITY
 PROGRAM REASONABLY DESIGNED  TO  PREVENT  SUCH  ACCESS  FROM  MATERIALLY
 INCREASING CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   2.  WHERE  PRIVILEGED  FRONTIER  MODEL  ACCESS  IS PROVIDED TO A THIRD
 PARTY, THE LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL, AS A CONDITION  OF  PROVIDING
 SUCH ACCESS, REQUIRE BY CONTRACT THAT SUCH THIRD PARTY COMPLY WITH SECU-
 RITY  REQUIREMENTS  REASONABLY  APPROPRIATE  TO  THE NATURE AND LEVEL OF
 ACCESS PROVIDED.
   3. THE SECURITY PROGRAM REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ONE  OF  THIS
 SECTION SHALL INCLUDE, AS APPROPRIATE:
   (A) IDENTITY VERIFICATION AND ACCESS CONTROLS;
   (B) APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEAST PRIVILEGE;
   (C) MULTIFACTOR OR COMPARABLY SECURE AUTHENTICATION;
   (D) LOGGING AND PERIODIC REVIEW OF PRIVILEGED ACCESS;
   (E)  SECURITY  REQUIREMENTS  FOR SYSTEMS USED TO ACCESS OR STORE MODEL
 WEIGHTS;
   (F) CREDENTIAL AND KEY MANAGEMENT;
   (G) PROCEDURES FOR PROMPT SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF ACCESS; AND
   (H) INCIDENT DETECTION AND REPORTING.
   4. A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN REASONABLE PROCEDURES  TO
 VERIFY  COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  REQUIREMENTS  OF  THIS  SECTION AND SHALL
 PROMPTLY SUSPEND OR MODIFY PRIVILEGED FRONTIER  MODEL  ACCESS  WHERE  IT
 REASONABLY  DETERMINES THAT CONTINUED ACCESS WOULD CREATE A MATERIAL AND
 UNREASONABLE RISK OF CATASTROPHIC HARM.
   5. PRIOR TO PUBLICLY RELEASING,  BROADLY  DISTRIBUTING,  OR  OTHERWISE
 TRANSFERRING MODEL WEIGHTS IN A MANNER REASONABLY EXPECTED TO MATERIALLY
 DIMINISH  THE  DEVELOPER'S  ABILITY  TO  MAINTAIN  OR ENFORCE SAFEGUARDS
 AGAINST CATASTROPHIC RISK, A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE  THAT
 THE  CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH RELEASE OR TRANSFER HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS PART
 OF AN INDEPENDENT SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRED PURSUANT TO  THIS  ARTICLE.
 SUCH EVALUATION SHALL CONSIDER, AS APPLICABLE, THE EXTENT TO WHICH SAFE-
 GUARDS  MAY  BECOME  UNAVAILABLE, REMOVABLE, OR CIRCUMVENTABLE FOLLOWING
 THE RELEASE OR TRANSFER  AND  THE  REASONABLY  FORESEEABLE  CATASTROPHIC
 RISKS  ARISING FROM THE INABILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO CONTROL DOWNSTREAM
 COPIES OR DERIVATIVES.
   6.  THE  OFFICE  SHALL  PROMULGATE  REGULATIONS  ESTABLISHING  MINIMUM
 CYBERSECURITY  STANDARDS  PURSUANT  TO  THIS  SECTION  AND SHALL, TO THE
 EXTENT PRACTICABLE, CONSIDER APPLICABLE FEDERAL STANDARDS AND  GENERALLY
 ACCEPTED CYBERSECURITY PRACTICES.
   § 1435. MITIGATION OF MATERIAL AND UNREASONABLE CATASTROPHIC RISK.  1.
 WHERE  AN  INDEPENDENT  SAFETY  EVALUATION, SIGNIFICANT SAFETY INCIDENT,
 CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT, POST-DEPLOYMENT MONITORING, OR OTHER  CREDIBLE
 EVIDENCE  PROVIDES  A  REASONABLE  BASIS TO DETERMINE THAT DEPLOYMENT OR
 OPERATION OF A FRONTIER MODEL PRESENTS A MATERIAL AND UNREASONABLE  RISK
 S. 10701                            8
 
 OF  CATASTROPHIC  HARM, A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL IMPLEMENT SAFE-
 GUARDS REASONABLY SUFFICIENT TO MITIGATE SUCH RISK.
   2.  IN  DETERMINING  WHETHER  A RISK IS MATERIAL AND UNREASONABLE, THE
 OFFICE SHALL CONSIDER, AS APPLICABLE:
   (A) THE SEVERITY AND SCALE OF REASONABLY FORESEEABLE HARM;
   (B) THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH HARM BASED  UPON  AVAILABLE  TECHNICAL  AND
 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE;
   (C) DEMONSTRATED CAPABILITIES OF THE FRONTIER MODEL;
   (D) ACCESSIBILITY OF A CAPABILITY RELEVANT TO CATASTROPHIC RISK;
   (E)  EFFECTIVENESS, RESILIENCE, AND CIRCUMVENTION RESISTANCE OF APPLI-
 CABLE SAFEGUARDS;
   (F) DEGREE OF AUTONOMY OF THE MODEL AND ITS ACCESS TO EXTERNAL  TOOLS,
 SYSTEMS, CREDENTIALS, OR COMPUTING RESOURCES;
   (G) CONTEXT AND SCALE OF DEPLOYMENT; AND
   (H) REASONABLY FORESEEABLE MISUSE.
   3.  THE  MERE  THEORETICAL  POSSIBILITY  THAT  A  FRONTIER MODEL COULD
 CONTRIBUTE TO CATASTROPHIC HARM SHALL NOT, STANDING ALONE, CONSTITUTE  A
 MATERIAL AND UNREASONABLE RISK OF CATASTROPHIC HARM.
   4. WHERE THE OFFICE DETERMINES, BASED UPON REASONABLE EVIDENCE, THAT A
 FRONTIER MODEL PRESENTS A MATERIAL AND UNREASONABLE RISK OF CATASTROPHIC
 HARM, THE OFFICE MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT EVALUATION, ENHANCED
 MONITORING OR REPORTING, OR ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED TECHNICAL OR ADMINIS-
 TRATIVE SAFEGUARDS REASONABLY NECESSARY AND PROPORTIONATE TO THE IDENTI-
 FIED RISK.
   5.  WHERE  THE  OFFICE  DETERMINES  THAT  A SPECIFIC CAPABILITY, TOOL,
 DEPLOYMENT CONFIGURATION, PRIVILEGED-ACCESS ARRANGEMENT, OR TRANSFER  OR
 DISTRIBUTION  OF MODEL WEIGHTS PRESENTS A MATERIAL AND UNREASONABLE RISK
 OF CATASTROPHIC HARM, THE OFFICE MAY TEMPORARILY RESTRICT SUCH  ACTIVITY
 UPON WRITTEN FINDINGS THAT:
   (A) IDENTIFY THE MATERIAL AND UNREASONABLE RISK;
   (B) IDENTIFY THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING SUCH DETERMINATION;
   (C)  ESTABLISH  A  DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ACTIVITY RESTRICTED
 AND THE IDENTIFIED RISK; AND
   (D) DETERMINE THAT LESS RESTRICTIVE MEASURES WOULD  BE  INADEQUATE  TO
 REASONABLY MITIGATE SUCH RISK.
   6.  EXCEPT  AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION SEVEN OF THIS SECTION, PRIOR TO
 IMPOSING A RESTRICTION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION, THE
 OFFICE SHALL PROVIDE THE LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER  WITH  NOTICE  OF  THE
 PROPOSED  RESTRICTION,  THE  MATERIAL  BASIS  THEREFOR, AND A REASONABLE
 OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
   7. WHERE THE OFFICE DETERMINES THAT  PROVIDING  PRIOR  NOTICE  AND  AN
 OPPORTUNITY  TO  RESPOND  WOULD  MATERIALLY INCREASE AN IMMINENT RISK OF
 CATASTROPHIC HARM, THE OFFICE  MAY  IMPOSE  A  RESTRICTION  PURSUANT  TO
 SUBDIVISION  FIVE OF THIS SECTION WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE. THE OFFICE SHALL
 PROMPTLY THEREAFTER PROVIDE THE  DEVELOPER  WITH  THE  WRITTEN  FINDINGS
 SUPPORTING  SUCH RESTRICTION AND AN EXPEDITED OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AND
 SEEK REVIEW.
   8. A RESTRICTION IMPOSED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION FIVE OR SEVEN OF THIS
 SECTION SHALL REMAIN EFFECTIVE FOR NO LONGER  THAN  THIRTY  DAYS  UNLESS
 RENEWED  BY  THE  OFFICE  UPON  UPDATED  WRITTEN FINDINGS SATISFYING THE
 REQUIREMENTS OF SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION.  WHERE  A  RESTRICTION
 IMPOSED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION FIVE OR SEVEN OF THIS SECTION REMAINS IN
 EFFECT FOR MORE THAN SIXTY DAYS IN THE AGGREGATE, THE OFFICE SHALL REFER
 THE  MATTER  TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR REVIEW. SUCH REFERRAL SHALL NOT
 REQUIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COMMENCE AN ACTION, SHALL NOT  INDEPEND-
 ENTLY  ALTER  THE DURATION OR VALIDITY OF THE RESTRICTION, AND SHALL NOT
 S. 10701                            9
 
 LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE TO RENEW SUCH RESTRICTION  IN  ACCORD-
 ANCE WITH THIS SUBDIVISION.
   9.  IN  DETERMINING  AN  APPROPRIATE  MEASURE  UNDER THIS SECTION, THE
 OFFICE SHALL CONSIDER THE AVAILABILITY AND LIKELY EFFECTIVENESS OF  LESS
 RESTRICTIVE  MEASURES.    NOTHING  IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL REQUIRE THE
 OFFICE TO IMPOSE OR EXHAUST A LESS RESTRICTIVE MEASURE THAT  IT  REASON-
 ABLY DETERMINES WOULD BE INADEQUATE.
   10. WHERE THE OFFICE DETERMINES, BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THAT
 DEPLOYMENT  OR  OPERATION  OF  A FRONTIER MODEL PRESENTS AN IMMINENT AND
 UNREASONABLE RISK OF CATASTROPHIC HARM AND THAT LESS  RESTRICTIVE  MEAS-
 URES WOULD BE INADEQUATE, THE OFFICE MAY REFER SUCH DETERMINATION TO THE
 ATTORNEY GENERAL.
   11.  UPON  A REFERRAL PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION TEN OF THIS SECTION, THE
 ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY COMMENCE AN ACTION IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR  TEMPO-
 RARY  OR  PERMANENT  INJUNCTIVE  RELIEF  NECESSARY  AND PROPORTIONATE TO
 PREVENT OR MITIGATE SUCH RISK, INCLUDING, WHERE  NECESSARY,  RESTRICTION
 OF DEPLOYMENT OR OPERATION OF THE FRONTIER MODEL IN THIS STATE.
   §  1436. PROTECTED SAFETY DISCLOSURES AND INDEPENDENT SAFETY RESEARCH.
 1. NO LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER, OR CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR  THEREOF,
 SHALL  DISCHARGE,  DEMOTE,  SUSPEND,  THREATEN, HARASS, DISCRIMINATE, OR
 OTHERWISE RETALIATE AGAINST  AN  EMPLOYEE  OR  CONTRACTOR  BECAUSE  SUCH
 EMPLOYEE OR CONTRACTOR, BASED UPON A REASONABLE BELIEF, DISCLOSES INFOR-
 MATION CONCERNING:
   (A) A VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE;
   (B) A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY INCIDENT OR CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT;
   (C) A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION OR OMISSION CONCERNING AN INDEPENDENT
 SAFETY  EVALUATION, FRONTIER AI FRAMEWORK, OR COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTI-
 CLE;
   (D) INTERFERENCE WITH OR MANIPULATION OF AN INDEPENDENT SAFETY  EVALU-
 ATION; OR
   (E) A MATERIAL AND UNREASONABLE RISK OF CATASTROPHIC HARM.
   2. THE PROTECTIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A DISCLOSURE MADE TO
 THE  LARGE  FRONTIER  DEVELOPER,  AN  INDEPENDENT  SAFETY EVALUATOR, THE
 OFFICE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR AN APPROPRIATE FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL
 GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY.
   3. NO AGREEMENT, POLICY, FORM, OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT OR CONTRACT-
 ING MAY PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT A DISCLOSURE PROTECTED BY THIS SECTION. ANY
 SUCH PROVISION SHALL BE VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE TO  THE  EXTENT  OF  SUCH
 PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION.
   4.  THE  OFFICE  SHALL  ESTABLISH  A SECURE MECHANISM THROUGH WHICH AN
 EMPLOYEE OR CONTRACTOR MAY CONFIDENTIALLY REPORT ALLEGED RETALIATION  OR
 INFORMATION DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION. THE OFFICE MAY
 INVESTIGATE  SUCH  COMPLAINT,  REQUEST  OR OBTAIN INFORMATION REASONABLY
 NECESSARY TO ASSESS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY  UNDER  THIS
 ARTICLE, AND REFER ITS FINDINGS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
   5.  A  VIOLATION  OF THIS SECTION SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS
 ARTICLE ENFORCEABLE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IN AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSU-
 ANT TO THIS ARTICLE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY SEEK, IN ADDITION  TO  ANY
 OTHER  RELIEF  AUTHORIZED  BY LAW, REINSTATEMENT, BACK PAY, LOST COMPEN-
 SATION, RESTITUTION,  INJUNCTIVE  RELIEF,  AND  OTHER  EQUITABLE  RELIEF
 REASONABLY NECESSARY TO REMEDY RETALIATION.
   6.  NOTHING  IN  THIS  SECTION  SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CREATE A PRIVATE
 RIGHT OF ACTION.
   7. NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO  PROHIBIT  OR  IMPOSE
 LIABILITY SOLELY BECAUSE A PERSON CONDUCTS AUTHORIZED, GOOD-FAITH SAFETY
 OR  SECURITY  RESEARCH  IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND REASONABLE
 S. 10701                           10
 
 SECURITY CONTROLS. NOTHING IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL EXEMPT  ANY  PERSON
 FROM  OTHERWISE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS,
 DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED INFORMATION, OR CONDUCT CREATING A MATERIAL  AND
 UNREASONABLE RISK OF CATASTROPHIC HARM.
   §  6.  Section  1427  of the general business law is amended by adding
 five new subdivisions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to read as follows:
   4. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY AUTHORIZED BY  THIS  ARTICLE,  THE
 ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION TO RECOVER A CIVIL PENALTY NOT
 TO  EXCEED ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT OF ANNUAL GROSS REVENUE WHERE A LARGE
 FRONTIER DEVELOPER KNOWINGLY:
   (A) FALSIFIES  OR  MATERIALLY  CONCEALS  INFORMATION  REQUIRED  TO  BE
 REPORTED OR TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE;
   (B)  CONCEALS  A  SIGNIFICANT  SAFETY INCIDENT REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED
 PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE;
   (C) DESTROYS, ALTERS, OR CAUSES THE DESTRUCTION  OR  ALTERATION  OF  A
 RECORD  REQUIRED  TO  BE  MAINTAINED  PURSUANT  TO  THIS ARTICLE FOR THE
 PURPOSE OF IMPEDING OVERSIGHT OR ENFORCEMENT;
   (D)  MATERIALLY  INTERFERES  WITH  AN  INDEPENDENT  SAFETY  EVALUATION
 REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE;
   (E)  DENIES AN INDEPENDENT SAFETY EVALUATOR ACCESS THAT SUCH DEVELOPER
 KNOWS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE; OR
   (F) COERCES, THREATENS, OR RETALIATES AGAINST A PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE
 OF  PREVENTING  A  REPORT,  DISCLOSURE,  OR  TRANSMISSION  REQUIRED   OR
 PROTECTED BY THIS ARTICLE.
   5.  THE  ATTORNEY  GENERAL MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION TO RECOVER A CIVIL
 PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED ONE PERCENT OF ANNUAL GROSS REVENUE WHERE A  LARGE
 FRONTIER DEVELOPER:
   (A)  WILLFULLY  CONCEALS  A  CRITICAL  SAFETY  INCIDENT REQUIRED TO BE
 REPORTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE; OR
   (B) WILLFULLY AND REPEATEDLY ENGAGES IN CONDUCT DESCRIBED IN  SUBDIVI-
 SION  FOUR  OF THIS SECTION WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO CONCEAL MATERIAL
 INFORMATION OR FRUSTRATE OVERSIGHT OR ENFORCEMENT UNDER THIS ARTICLE.
   6. FOR PURPOSES OF SUBDIVISIONS FOUR AND FIVE OF THIS SECTION, "ANNUAL
 GROSS REVENUE"  MEANS  THE  GROSS  REVENUE,  DURING  THE  MOST  RECENTLY
 COMPLETED  FISCAL  YEAR  PRECEDING  THE VIOLATION, OF THE LARGE FRONTIER
 DEVELOPER AND ANY AFFILIATE THAT MATERIALLY PARTICIPATED IN, CONTROLLED,
 DIRECTED, OR PROVIDED MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT,  DEPLOYMENT,
 OPERATION,  DISTRIBUTION,  OR  PROVISION OF ACCESS TO THE FRONTIER MODEL
 GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION.
   7. WHERE THE  ATTORNEY  GENERAL  ESTABLISHES  THAT  A  REORGANIZATION,
 TRANSFER  OF  ASSETS,  ALLOCATION  OF REVENUE, CHANGE IN CORPORATE FORM,
 CREATION OR USE OF AN AFFILIATE, OR OTHER TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT WAS
 UNDERTAKEN IN SUBSTANTIAL PART FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING OR MATERIALLY
 REDUCING A PENALTY AUTHORIZED BY THIS SECTION, THE COURT  MAY  DETERMINE
 ANNUAL  GROSS  REVENUE WITHOUT REGARD TO SUCH TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT
 TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PREVENT SUCH EVASION.
   8. A GOOD-FAITH LEGAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR TECHNICAL DISAGREEMENT  CONCERN-
 ING  WHETHER AN INCIDENT IS REPORTABLE, WHETHER INFORMATION OR ACCESS IS
 REQUIRED OR REASONABLY NECESSARY UNDER THIS ARTICLE, OR  THE  NATURE  OR
 SEVERITY  OF  A  RISK SHALL NOT, STANDING ALONE, CONSTITUTE CONCEALMENT,
 OBSTRUCTION, OR INTERFERENCE FOR PURPOSES OF SUBDIVISIONS FOUR  OR  FIVE
 OF THIS SECTION.
   §  7.  Subdivision  4  of section 1428 of the general business law, as
 added by chapter 96 of the laws of 2026, is amended to read as follows:
   4. Large frontier developers shall be assessed in pro rata  shares  by
 the  department  to  defray the operating expenses, including all direct
 S. 10701                           11
 
 and indirect costs, of administering the  obligations  imposed  by  this
 article.  SUCH  COSTS  MAY  INCLUDE,  BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, COSTS
 ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCREDITATION, RECOGNITION, AND OVERSIGHT  OF  INDE-
 PENDENT SAFETY EVALUATORS; TECHNICAL PERSONNEL; CONTRACTS WITH TECHNICAL
 EXPERTS,  LABORATORIES,  ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS, OR OTHER QUALIFIED ENTI-
 TIES; INVESTIGATIONS; RULEMAKING; POST-DEPLOYMENT MONITORING  OVERSIGHT;
 INFORMATION SECURITY; AND ENFORCEMENT.
   §  8. Section 1429 of the general business law, as added by chapter 96
 of the laws of 2026, is amended to read as follows:
   § 1429. Rulemaking authority. 1. The office is  hereby  authorized  to
 adopt  rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this article
 as needed. To the extent the office determines that doing so will facil-
 itate safety and transparency consistent with the underlying purpose  of
 this  article,  the office may consider additional reporting or publica-
 tion requirements for information to facilitate safety and transparency,
 including but not limited to, post-critical safety incident information,
 sharing plans and protocols, and the transmission of frontier AI  frame-
 works to the office.
   2.  THE OFFICE MAY PROMULGATE SUCH ADDITIONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS AS
 ARE NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT  SECTIONS  FOURTEEN  HUNDRED  THIRTY  THROUGH
 FOURTEEN HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX OF THIS ARTICLE.
   3.  IN  PROMULGATING  AND PERIODICALLY REVIEWING RULES AND REGULATIONS
 PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, THE OFFICE SHALL CONSULT, AS APPROPRIATE, WITH
 FEDERAL AGENCIES  AND  STANDARD-SETTING  BODIES,  INDEPENDENT  TECHNICAL
 EXPERTS,  ACADEMIC  INSTITUTIONS,  CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS, FRONTIER
 DEVELOPERS, INDEPENDENT SAFETY EVALUATORS,  CYBERSECURITY  EXPERTS,  AND
 OTHER PERSONS WITH RELEVANT EXPERTISE.
   4.  THE  OFFICE  MAY ENTER INTO CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS WITH TECHNICAL
 EXPERTS, LABORATORIES, ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS, OR OTHER  QUALIFIED  ENTI-
 TIES  AS  REASONABLY  NECESSARY  TO ADMINISTER AND ENFORCE THIS ARTICLE.
 NOTHING IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL AUTHORIZE THE OFFICE TO DELEGATE TO  A
 PRIVATE ENTITY A FINAL REGULATORY OR ENFORCEMENT DETERMINATION VESTED IN
 THE OFFICE BY THIS ARTICLE.
   5.  THE  OFFICE  MAY  ADOPT  PROCEDURES  GOVERNING  DETERMINATIONS  OF
 SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION FOURTEEN HUNDRED  THIRTY  OF
 THIS ARTICLE AND MAY ENTER INTO APPROPRIATE INFORMATION-SHARING OR COOP-
 ERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL REGULA-
 TORS,   PROVIDED   THAT  CONFIDENTIAL  INFORMATION  REMAINS  SUBJECT  TO
 PROTECTIONS REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE AND APPLICABLE LAW.
   § 9. Severability. If any clause,  sentence,  paragraph,  subdivision,
 section,  or  part of this act, or the application thereof to any person
 or circumstance, shall be adjudged by any court of  competent  jurisdic-
 tion  to  be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invali-
 date the remainder thereof or the application thereof to  other  persons
 or circumstances.
   § 10. This act shall take effect one year after it shall have become a
 law; provided, however, that if chapter 96 of the laws of 2026 shall not
 have taken effect on or before such date then this act shall take effect
 one year after such chapter takes effect.