Senate Bill S8828

                             
                     S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   8828
 
                             I N  S E N A T E
 
                              January 8, 2026
                                ___________
 
 Introduced by Sen. GOUNARDES -- 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 transparency
   and safety requirements  for  developers  of  artificial  intelligence
   frontier  models;  to amend a chapter of the laws of 2025 amending the
   general business law relating to the training and  use  of  artificial
   intelligence frontier models, as proposed in legislative bills numbers
   S.  6953-B  and A.   6453-B, in relation to the effectiveness thereof;
   and to repeal certain provisions of the general business law, relating
   thereto
 
   THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
 
   Section  1. Legislative findings and intent. The legislature finds and
 declares all of the following:
   1. New York is leading the world in artificial intelligence innovation
 and research through companies large and small and through  the  state's
 remarkable public and private universities.
   2.  Artificial  intelligence,  including  new  advances  in foundation
 models, has the potential to catalyze innovation and the rapid  develop-
 ment of a wide range of benefits for New Yorkers and the New York econo-
 my, including advances in medicine, wildfire forecasting and prevention,
 and  climate  modeling,  and  to push the bounds of human creativity and
 capacity.
   3. In building a robust and transparent evidence environment,  policy-
 makers  can  simultaneously  protect consumers, leverage industry exper-
 tise, and recognize leading safety practices.
   4. As industry actors conduct internal research on their technologies'
 impacts, public trust in these technologies would significantly  benefit
 from  access to information regarding, and increased awareness of, fron-
 tier AI capabilities.
   5. Greater transparency can also advance accountability,  competition,
 and public trust.
   6.  Incident reporting systems facilitate understanding and monitoring
 of the post-deployment impacts of artificial intelligence.

  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.
              

                                                            LBD00047-16-6
 S. 8828                             2
 
   7. Unless they are developed with  careful  diligence  and  reasonable
 precaution,  there  is  concern  that  advanced  artificial intelligence
 systems could have capabilities that pose catastrophic risks.
   8.  While  the  major  artificial intelligence developers have already
 voluntarily established the creation, use, and publication  of  frontier
 AI  frameworks  as  an  industry  best  practice, not all developers are
 providing information that is consistent and sufficient to ensure neces-
 sary transparency and protection of the public. Mandatory, standardized,
 and objective  disclosures  by  frontier  developers  are  necessary  to
 provide  the government and the public with timely and accurate informa-
 tion.
   9. Timely reporting of critical safety incidents to the government  is
 essential  to  ensure  that  public authorities are promptly informed of
 ongoing and emerging risks to public safety. This reporting enables  the
 government  to  monitor effectively in the event that advanced capabili-
 ties emerge in frontier artificial intelligence models that may  pose  a
 threat to the public.
   10.  It  is the intent of the legislature to create more transparency,
 and collective safety will depend in part on frontier developers  taking
 due  care in their development and deployment of frontier models propor-
 tional to the scale of the foreseeable risks.
   § 2. Article 44-B of the general business law, as added by  a  chapter
 of  the  laws  of 2025 amending the general business law relating to the
 training and use of artificial intelligence frontier models, as proposed
 in legislative bills numbers S. 6953-B and A. 6453-B, is REPEALED and  a
 new article 44-B is added to read as follows:
 
                               ARTICLE 44-B
              RESPONSIBLE AI SAFETY AND EDUCATION (RAISE) ACT
 
 SECTION 1420. DEFINITIONS.
         1421. TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS.
         1422. REPORTING.
         1423. LOSS OF EQUITY.
         1424  DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS.
         1425. SCOPE.
         1426. EXCEPTIONS.
         1427. VIOLATIONS.
         1428. LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER DISCLOSURE.
         1429. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.
   §  1420.  DEFINITIONS.  AS  USED  IN THIS ARTICLE, THE FOLLOWING TERMS
 SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING MEANINGS:
   1. "AFFILIATE" MEANS A PERSON CONTROLLING,  CONTROLLED  BY,  OR  UNDER
 COMMON  CONTROL WITH A SPECIFIED PERSON, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THROUGH
 ONE OR MORE INTERMEDIARIES.
   2. "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODEL" MEANS  AN  ENGINEERED  OR  MACHINE-
 BASED  SYSTEM  THAT  VARIES  IN  ITS LEVEL OF AUTONOMY AND THAT CAN, FOR
 EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT OBJECTIVES, INFER FROM THE INPUT IT RECEIVES HOW TO
 GENERATE OUTPUTS THAT CAN INFLUENCE PHYSICAL OR VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS.
   3. (A) "CATASTROPHIC RISK" MEANS A FORESEEABLE AND MATERIAL RISK  THAT
 A  FRONTIER  DEVELOPER'S  DEVELOPMENT,  STORAGE, USE, OR DEPLOYMENT OF A
 FRONTIER MODEL WILL MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEATH  OF,  OR  SERIOUS
 INJURY  TO,  MORE  THAN FIFTY PEOPLE OR MORE THAN ONE BILLION DOLLARS IN
 DAMAGE TO, OR LOSS OF, PROPERTY ARISING FROM A SINGLE INCIDENT INVOLVING
 A FRONTIER MODEL DOING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
 S. 8828                             3
 
   (I) PROVIDING EXPERT-LEVEL ASSISTANCE IN THE CREATION OR RELEASE OF  A
 CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, OR NUCLEAR WEAPON;
   (II)  ENGAGING  IN  CONDUCT WITH NO MEANINGFUL HUMAN OVERSIGHT, INTER-
 VENTION, OR SUPERVISION THAT IS EITHER A CYBERATTACK OR, IF THE  CONDUCT
 HAD  BEEN  COMMITTED  BY  A HUMAN, WOULD CONSTITUTE THE CRIME OF MURDER,
 ASSAULT, EXTORTION, OR THEFT, INCLUDING THEFT BY FALSE PRETENSE; OR
   (III) EVADING THE CONTROL OF ITS FRONTIER DEVELOPER OR USER.
   (B) "CATASTROPHIC RISK" DOES NOT INCLUDE A  FORESEEABLE  AND  MATERIAL
 RISK FROM ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
   (I)  INFORMATION  THAT  A FRONTIER MODEL OUTPUTS IF THE INFORMATION IS
 OTHERWISE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE IN A SUBSTANTIALLY  SIMILAR  FORM  FROM  A
 SOURCE OTHER THAN A FOUNDATION MODEL;
   (II) LAWFUL ACTIVITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; OR
   (III)  HARM CAUSED BY A FRONTIER MODEL IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER SOFT-
 WARE IF THE FRONTIER MODEL DID NOT MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE HARM.
   4. "CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT" MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
   (A) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO, MODIFICATION OF, OR EXFILTRATION  OF,  THE
 MODEL  WEIGHTS OF A FRONTIER MODEL THAT RESULTS IN DEATH OR BODILY INJU-
 RY;
   (B) HARM RESULTING FROM THE MATERIALIZATION OF A CATASTROPHIC RISK;
   (C) LOSS OF CONTROL OF A FRONTIER MODEL CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY  INJU-
 RY; OR
   (D)  A FRONTIER MODEL THAT USES DECEPTIVE TECHNIQUES AGAINST THE FRON-
 TIER DEVELOPER TO SUBVERT THE CONTROLS OR  MONITORING  OF  ITS  FRONTIER
 DEVELOPER  OUTSIDE  OF  THE  CONTEXT OF AN EVALUATION DESIGNED TO ELICIT
 THIS BEHAVIOR AND IN A MANNER  THAT  DEMONSTRATES  MATERIALLY  INCREASED
 CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   5.  (A)  "DEPLOY"  MEANS TO MAKE A FRONTIER MODEL AVAILABLE TO A THIRD
 PARTY FOR USE, MODIFICATION, COPYING, OR COMBINATION  WITH  OTHER  SOFT-
 WARE.
   (B)  "DEPLOY"  DOES NOT INCLUDE MAKING A FRONTIER MODEL AVAILABLE TO A
 THIRD PARTY FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE  OF  DEVELOPING  OR  EVALUATING  THE
 FRONTIER MODEL.
   6.  "FOUNDATION  MODEL" MEANS AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODEL THAT IS
 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
   (A) TRAINED ON A BROAD DATA SET;
   (B) DESIGNED FOR GENERALITY OF OUTPUT; AND
   (C) ADAPTABLE TO A WIDE RANGE OF DISTINCTIVE TASKS.
   7. "FRONTIER AI FRAMEWORK" MEANS DOCUMENTED  TECHNICAL  AND  ORGANIZA-
 TIONAL PROTOCOLS TO MANAGE, ASSESS, AND MITIGATE CATASTROPHIC RISKS.
   8.  "FRONTIER  DEVELOPER" MEANS A PERSON WHO HAS TRAINED, OR INITIATED
 THE TRAINING OF, A FRONTIER MODEL, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE PERSON  HAS
 USED,  OR  INTENDS TO USE, AT LEAST AS MUCH COMPUTING POWER TO TRAIN THE
 FRONTIER MODEL AS WOULD  MEET  THE  TECHNICAL  SPECIFICATIONS  FOUND  IN
 SUBDIVISION NINE OF THIS SECTION.
   9.  (A)  "FRONTIER  MODEL"  MEANS  A FOUNDATION MODEL THAT WAS TRAINED
 USING A QUANTITY OF COMPUTING POWER GREATER THAN 10º26 INTEGER OR FLOAT-
 ING-POINT OPERATIONS.
   (B) THE QUANTITY OF COMPUTING POWER DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS
 SUBDIVISION SHALL INCLUDE COMPUTING FOR THE ORIGINAL  TRAINING  RUN  AND
 FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT FINE-TUNING, REINFORCEMENT LEARNING, OR OTHER MATERI-
 AL MODIFICATIONS THE DEVELOPER APPLIES TO A PRECEDING FOUNDATION MODEL.
   10. "LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER" MEANS A FRONTIER DEVELOPER THAT TOGETH-
 ER  WITH ITS AFFILIATES COLLECTIVELY HAD ANNUAL GROSS REVENUES IN EXCESS
 OF FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR.
 S. 8828                             4
 
   11. "MODEL WEIGHT" MEANS A NUMERICAL PARAMETER  IN  A  FRONTIER  MODEL
 THAT  IS  ADJUSTED  THROUGH TRAINING AND THAT HELPS DETERMINE HOW INPUTS
 ARE TRANSFORMED INTO OUTPUTS.
   12. "DEPARTMENT" MEANS THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES.
   13. "PROPERTY" MEANS TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.
   14.  "PERSON"  MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL, PROPRIETORSHIP, FIRM, PARTNERSHIP,
 JOINT VENTURE, SYNDICATE, BUSINESS TRUST, COMPANY, CORPORATION,  LIMITED
 LIABILITY  COMPANY, ASSOCIATION, COMMITTEE, OR ANY OTHER NONGOVERNMENTAL
 ORGANIZATION OR GROUP OF PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT.
   15. "SUPERINTENDENT" MEANS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES.
   16. "OFFICE" MEANS  AN  OFFICE  WITHIN  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  FINANCIAL
 SERVICES, WHICH SHALL REPORT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
 AND IS TASKED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ARTICLE.
   § 1421. TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS. 1. A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL
 WRITE,  IMPLEMENT, COMPLY WITH, AND CLEARLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY PUBLISH ON
 ITS INTERNET WEBSITE A FRONTIER AI FRAMEWORK THAT APPLIES TO  THE  LARGE
 FRONTIER  DEVELOPER'S  FRONTIER  MODELS  AND DESCRIBES IN DETAIL HOW THE
 LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER HANDLES ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
   (A) INCORPORATING NATIONAL  STANDARDS,  INTERNATIONAL  STANDARDS,  AND
 INDUSTRY CONSENSUS BEST PRACTICES INTO ITS FRONTIER AI FRAMEWORK;
   (B)  DEFINING  AND  ASSESSING  THRESHOLDS  USED  BY THE LARGE FRONTIER
 DEVELOPER TO IDENTIFY AND ASSESS WHETHER A FRONTIER MODEL HAS  CAPABILI-
 TIES THAT COULD POSE A CATASTROPHIC RISK, WHICH MAY INCLUDE MULTIPLE-TI-
 ERED THRESHOLDS;
   (C)  APPLYING  MITIGATIONS  TO  ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL FOR CATASTROPHIC
 RISKS BASED ON THE RESULTS OF ASSESSMENTS UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT  TO  PARA-
 GRAPH (B) OF THIS SUBDIVISION;
   (D)  REVIEWING  ASSESSMENTS AND ADEQUACY OF MITIGATIONS AS PART OF THE
 DECISION TO DEPLOY A FRONTIER MODEL OR USE IT EXTENSIVELY INTERNALLY;
   (E) USING THIRD PARTIES TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL FOR CATASTROPHIC RISKS
 AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATIONS OF CATASTROPHIC RISKS;
   (F) REVISITING AND UPDATING THE FRONTIER AI FRAMEWORK,  INCLUDING  ANY
 CRITERIA  THAT  TRIGGER  UPDATES  AND  HOW  THE LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER
 DETERMINES WHEN ITS FRONTIER MODELS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED ENOUGH TO
 REQUIRE DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION THREE OF THIS SECTION;
   (G) CYBERSECURITY PRACTICES TO SECURE UNRELEASED  MODEL  WEIGHTS  FROM
 UNAUTHORIZED MODIFICATION OR TRANSFER BY INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL PARTIES;
   (H) IDENTIFYING AND RESPONDING TO CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENTS;
   (I) INSTITUTING INTERNAL GOVERNANCE PRACTICES TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION
 OF THESE PROCESSES; AND
   (J) ASSESSING AND MANAGING CATASTROPHIC RISK RESULTING FROM THE INTER-
 NAL  USE  OF ITS FRONTIER MODELS, INCLUDING RISKS RESULTING FROM A FRON-
 TIER MODEL CIRCUMVENTING OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS.
   2. (A) A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL REVIEW  AND,  AS  APPROPRIATE,
 UPDATE ITS FRONTIER AI FRAMEWORK AT LEAST ONCE PER YEAR.
   (B) IF A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER MAKES A MATERIAL MODIFICATION TO ITS
 FRONTIER  AI  FRAMEWORK,  THE LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL CLEARLY AND
 CONSPICUOUSLY PUBLISH THE MODIFIED FRONTIER AI FRAMEWORK  AND  A  JUSTI-
 FICATION FOR THAT MODIFICATION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS.
   3. (A) BEFORE, OR CONCURRENTLY WITH, DEPLOYING A NEW FRONTIER MODEL OR
 A  SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED VERSION OF AN EXISTING FRONTIER MODEL, A FRON-
 TIER DEVELOPER SHALL CLEARLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY PUBLISH ON  ITS  INTERNET
 WEBSITE A TRANSPARENCY REPORT CONTAINING ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
   (I) THE INTERNET WEBSITE OF THE FRONTIER DEVELOPER;
   (II) A MECHANISM THAT ENABLES A NATURAL PERSON TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE
 FRONTIER DEVELOPER;
 S. 8828                             5
 
   (III) THE RELEASE DATE OF THE FRONTIER MODEL;
   (IV) THE LANGUAGES SUPPORTED BY THE FRONTIER MODEL;
   (V) THE MODALITIES OF OUTPUT SUPPORTED BY THE FRONTIER MODEL;
   (VI) THE INTENDED USES OF THE FRONTIER MODEL; AND
   (VII)  ANY  GENERALLY APPLICABLE RESTRICTIONS OR CONDITIONS ON USES OF
 THE FRONTIER MODEL.
   (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.
   (C)  A  FRONTIER DEVELOPER THAT PUBLISHES THE INFORMATION DESCRIBED IN
 PARAGRAPH (A) OR (B) OF THIS SUBDIVISION AS PART OF A  LARGER  DOCUMENT,
 INCLUDING  A  SYSTEM  CARD  OR MODEL CARD, SHALL BE DEEMED IN COMPLIANCE
 WITH THE APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH.
   4. (A) (I) A FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL NOT MAKE A MATERIALLY  FALSE  OR
 MISLEADING STATEMENT ABOUT CATASTROPHIC RISK FROM ITS FRONTIER MODELS OR
 ITS MANAGEMENT OF CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   (II)  A  LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL NOT MAKE A MATERIALLY FALSE OR
 MISLEADING STATEMENT ABOUT ITS IMPLEMENTATION OF,  OR  COMPLIANCE  WITH,
 ITS FRONTIER AI FRAMEWORK.
   (B)  THIS  SUBDIVISION SHALL NOT APPLY TO A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE IN
 GOOD FAITH AND WAS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
   5. (A) WHEN A FRONTIER DEVELOPER PUBLISHES DOCUMENTS  TO  COMPLY  WITH
 THIS  SECTION, SUCH FRONTIER DEVELOPER MAY MAKE REDACTIONS TO SUCH DOCU-
 MENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO  PROTECT  SUCH  FRONTIER  DEVELOPER'S  TRADE
 SECRETS,  SUCH FRONTIER DEVELOPER'S CYBERSECURITY, PUBLIC SAFETY, OR THE
 NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OR TO COMPLY WITH ANY FEDERAL  OR
 STATE LAW.
   (B) IF A FRONTIER DEVELOPER REDACTS INFORMATION IN A DOCUMENT PURSUANT
 TO  THIS SUBDIVISION, SUCH FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL DESCRIBE THE CHARAC-
 TER AND JUSTIFICATION OF SUCH REDACTION IN ANY PUBLISHED VERSION OF SUCH
 DOCUMENT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE CONCERNS THAT JUSTIFY  REDACTION
 AND SHALL RETAIN THE UNREDACTED INFORMATION FOR FIVE YEARS.
   §  1422.  REPORTING.  1.  THE OFFICE SHALL ESTABLISH A MECHANISM TO BE
 USED BY A FRONTIER DEVELOPER OR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO REPORT A CRIT-
 ICAL SAFETY INCIDENT THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
   (A) THE DATE OF THE CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT;
   (B) THE REASONS THE INCIDENT QUALIFIES AS A CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT;
   (C) A SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT DESCRIBING THE CRITICAL  SAFETY  INCI-
 DENT; AND
   (D)  WHETHER  THE INCIDENT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH INTERNAL USE OF A FRON-
 TIER MODEL.
   2. (A) A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER  SHALL  TRANSMIT  TO  THE  OFFICE  A
 SUMMARY  OF  ANY ASSESSMENT OF CATASTROPHIC RISK RESULTING FROM INTERNAL
 USE OF ITS FRONTIER MODELS EVERY THREE MONTHS  OR  PURSUANT  TO  ANOTHER
 REASONABLE  SCHEDULE REQUESTED BY THE LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER, COMMUNI-
 CATED IN WRITING TO THE OFFICE WITH WRITTEN UPDATES, AS APPROPRIATE, AND
 AGREED UPON BY THE OFFICE. THE OFFICE SHALL ESTABLISH A MECHANISM TO  BE
 S. 8828                             6
 
 USED BY A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER TO CONFIDENTIALLY SUBMIT SUMMARIES OF
 ANY  ASSESSMENTS  OF  THE POTENTIAL FOR CATASTROPHIC RISK RESULTING FROM
 INTERNAL USE OF ITS FRONTIER MODELS.
   (B)  THE  OFFICE SHALL TAKE ALL REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS TO LIMIT ACCESS
 TO ANY REPORTS RELATED TO  INTERNAL  USE  OF  FRONTIER  MODELS  TO  ONLY
 PERSONNEL  AUTHORIZED TO KNOW THE INFORMATION AND TO PROTECT THE REPORTS
 FROM UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS.
   3. (A) SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS SUBDIVISION, A FRONTIER DEVEL-
 OPER SHALL REPORT ANY CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT PERTAINING TO ONE OR MORE
 OF ITS FRONTIER MODELS TO THE OFFICE WITHIN  SEVENTY-TWO  HOURS  FROM  A
 DETERMINATION  THAT  A  CRITICAL  SAFETY INCIDENT HAS OCCURRED OR WITHIN
 SEVENTY-TWO HOURS OF THE FRONTIER DEVELOPER LEARNING FACTS SUFFICIENT TO
 ESTABLISH A REASONABLE  BELIEF  THAT  A  CRITICAL  SAFETY  INCIDENT  HAS
 OCCURRED.
   (B)  IF A FRONTIER DEVELOPER DISCOVERS THAT A CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT
 POSES AN IMMINENT RISK OF DEATH OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, THE FRONTIER
 DEVELOPER SHALL DISCLOSE THAT INCIDENT WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR  HOURS  TO  AN
 AUTHORITY,  INCLUDING ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCY
 WITH JURISDICTION, THAT IS APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE NATURE OF THAT INCI-
 DENT AND AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
   (C) A FRONTIER DEVELOPER THAT DISCOVERS INFORMATION ABOUT  A  CRITICAL
 SAFETY  INCIDENT AFTER FILING THE INITIAL REPORT REQUIRED BY THIS SUBDI-
 VISION MAY FILE AN AMENDED REPORT.
   4. THE OFFICE SHALL REVIEW CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT REPORTS  SUBMITTED
 BY  FRONTIER  DEVELOPERS  AND MAY REVIEW REPORTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF
 THE PUBLIC.
   5. (A) THE OFFICE MAY TRANSMIT REPORTS OF CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENTS OR
 SUMMARIES OF ANY ASSESSMENTS OF CATASTROPHIC RISK FROM INTERNAL  USE  OF
 FRONTIER  MODELS  TO  OTHER  GOVERNMENTAL  ENTITIES AT THEIR DISCRETION,
 CONSIDERING FOR EXAMPLE AND WITHOUT LIMITATION THE FOLLOWING: THE SEVER-
 ITY OF ANY SUCH INCIDENT, POTENTIAL ONGOING RISKS, LEGAL  OR  REGULATORY
 OBLIGATIONS,  THE NEED FOR COORDINATING WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
 OR OTHER ENTITIES AND THE AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION. THE OFFICE  SHALL
 CONSIDER  TRANSMITTING  SUCH  REPORTS  OR SUMMARIES TO THE OFFICE OF THE
 ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS APPROPRIATE. ANY REPORT TRANSMITTED FROM THE OFFICE
 TO ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY SHALL BE  EXEMPT  FROM  DISCLOSURE  UNDER
 ARTICLE SIX OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW.
   (B)  THE  OFFICE MAY CONSIDER, AT ITS DISCRETION, ANY RISKS RELATED TO
 TRADE SECRETS, PUBLIC SAFETY, CYBERSECURITY OF A FRONTIER DEVELOPER,  OR
 NATIONAL SECURITY WHEN TRANSMITTING REPORTS.
   6.  A  REPORT  OF  A  CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE
 PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION AND A REPORT  OF  ASSESSMENTS  OF  CATASTROPHIC
 RISK  FROM  INTERNAL USE PURSUANT TO SECTION FOURTEEN HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE
 OF THIS ARTICLE, ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER  ARTICLE  SIX  OF  THE
 PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW.
   7. (A) BEGINNING JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-EIGHT, AND ANNUAL-
 LY  THEREAFTER,  THE  OFFICE  SHALL  PRODUCE A REPORT, THAT INCLUDES THE
 FOLLOWING:
   (I) ANONYMIZED AND AGGREGATED INFORMATION ABOUT CRITICAL SAFETY  INCI-
 DENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE OFFICE SINCE THE PRECEDING REPORT;
   (II)  ANY INFORMATION THAT THE OFFICE DEEMS RELEVANT TO FRONTIER MODEL
 SAFETY;
   (III) RECOMMENDED UPDATES TO THIS ARTICLE, IF ANY; AND
   (IV) ANY DEVELOPMENTS RELEVANT TO THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE.
   (B) THE OFFICE SHALL NOT INCLUDE INFORMATION IN A REPORT  PURSUANT  TO
 THIS SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD COMPROMISE THE TRADE SECRETS OR CYBERSECURI-
 S. 8828                             7
 
 TY  OF  A FRONTIER DEVELOPER, PUBLIC SAFETY, OR THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF
 THE UNITED STATES OR THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED BY ANY  FEDERAL  OR  STATE
 LAW.
   (C) THE OFFICE SHALL TRANSMIT A REPORT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION TO
 THE GOVERNOR, THE TEMPORARY PRESIDENT AND MINORITY LEADER OF THE SENATE,
 THE  SPEAKER  AND MINORITY LEADER OF THE ASSEMBLY, THE CHAIR AND RANKING
 MEMBER OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY, AND THE CHAIR
 AND RANKING MEMBER OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
   8. THE OFFICE MAY ADOPT REGULATIONS DESIGNATING ONE  OR  MORE  FEDERAL
 LAWS,  REGULATIONS, OR GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS THAT MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
 CONDITIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBDIVISION NINE OF THIS SECTION:
   (A) (I) THE LAW, REGULATION, OR GUIDANCE DOCUMENT  IMPOSES  OR  STATES
 STANDARDS  OR  REQUIREMENTS  FOR CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT REPORTING THAT
 ARE SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO, OR STRICTER  THAN,  THOSE  REQUIRED  BY
 SUBDIVISION THREE OF THIS SECTION; AND
   (II)  THE  LAW, REGULATION, OR GUIDANCE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED IN SUBPARA-
 GRAPH (I) OF THIS PARAGRAPH DOES NOT NEED  TO  REQUIRE  CRITICAL  SAFETY
 INCIDENT REPORTING TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK; AND
   (B)  THE  LAW, REGULATION, OR GUIDANCE DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO ASSESS,
 DETECT, OR MITIGATE THE CATASTROPHIC RISK.
   9. (A) A FRONTIER DEVELOPER THAT INTENDS TO  COMPLY  WITH  SUBDIVISION
 THREE  OF THIS SECTION BY COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF, OR MEETING
 THE STANDARDS STATED BY, A FEDERAL LAW, REGULATION, OR GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
 DESIGNATED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION EIGHT OF THIS SECTION  SHALL  DECLARE
 ITS INTENT TO DO SO TO THE OFFICE.
   (B)  AFTER  A  FRONTIER  DEVELOPER HAS DECLARED ITS INTENT PURSUANT TO
 PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SUBDIVISION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY:
   (I) THE FRONTIER DEVELOPER SHALL BE DEEMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVI-
 SION THREE OF THIS SECTION TO THE EXTENT  THAT  THE  FRONTIER  DEVELOPER
 MEETS  THE  STANDARDS  OF,  OR COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED OR
 STATED BY, THE DESIGNATED FEDERAL LAW, REGULATION, OR GUIDANCE  DOCUMENT
 UNTIL  THE  FRONTIER DEVELOPER DECLARES THE REVOCATION OF THAT INTENT TO
 THE OFFICE OR THE OFFICE  REVOKES  A  RELEVANT  REGULATION  PURSUANT  TO
 SUBDIVISION TEN OF THIS SECTION;
   (II)  THE FAILURE BY A FRONTIER DEVELOPER TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF, OR
 COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS STATED BY, THE FEDERAL LAW, REGULATION,  OR
 GUIDANCE  DOCUMENT  DESIGNATED  PURSUANT  TO  SUBDIVISION  EIGHT OF THIS
 SECTION SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE; AND
   (III) FRONTIER DEVELOPERS WHO COMPLY WITH SUBDIVISION  THREE  OF  THIS
 SECTION BY MEETING SUCH FEDERAL STANDARDS SHALL SEND COPIES OF ANY CRIT-
 ICAL  SAFETY  INCIDENT REPORTS REQUIRED BY SUCH FEDERAL STANDARDS TO THE
 OFFICE CONCURRENTLY WITH SENDING THEM TO FEDERAL AUTHORITIES.
   10. THE OFFICE SHALL REVOKE A  REGULATION  ADOPTED  UNDER  SUBDIVISION
 EIGHT  OF  THIS SECTION IF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBDIVISION EIGHT OF THIS
 SECTION ARE NO LONGER MET.
   § 1423. LOSS OF EQUITY. THE LOSS OF VALUE OF EQUITY SHALL NOT COUNT AS
 DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE.
   § 1424. DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS. THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED  BY
 THIS ARTICLE ARE CUMULATIVE WITH ANY OTHER DUTIES OR OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED
 UNDER OTHER LAW AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO RELIEVE ANY PARTY FROM ANY
 OTHER DUTIES OR OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED UNDER OTHER LAW AND DO NOT LIMIT ANY
 RIGHTS OR REMEDIES UNDER EXISTING LAW.
   §  1425.  SCOPE. THIS ARTICLE SHALL ONLY APPLY TO FRONTIER MODELS THAT
 ARE DEVELOPED, DEPLOYED, OR OPERATING IN WHOLE OR IN PART  IN  NEW  YORK
 STATE.
   § 1426. EXCEPTIONS. NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL APPLY TO:
 S. 8828                             8
 
   1.  ACCREDITED  COLLEGES  AND  UNIVERSITIES  IN NEW YORK STATE, TO THE
 EXTENT SUCH COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ARE ENGAGING IN ACADEMIC  RESEARCH
 REGARDING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS; OR
   2.  THE  EMPIRE  AI  CONSORTIUM  OR  THE  INSTITUTE, AS SUCH TERMS ARE
 DEFINED BY SECTION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE OF THE  ECONOMIC  DEVELOPMENT
 LAW.
   §  1427.  VIOLATIONS. 1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION
 TO RECOVER A CIVIL PENALTY IN  AN  AMOUNT  NOT  TO  EXCEED  ONE  MILLION
 DOLLARS  FOR  A  FIRST  VIOLATION  AND  IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THREE
 MILLION DOLLARS PER SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION, DETERMINED BASED ON THE SEVER-
 ITY OF THE VIOLATION WHERE A LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER FAILS  TO  PUBLISH
 OR TRANSMIT A COMPLIANT DOCUMENT REQUIRED TO BE PUBLISHED OR TRANSMITTED
 UNDER  THIS  ARTICLE, MAKES A STATEMENT IN VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION FOUR
 OF SECTION FOURTEEN HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE OF THIS ARTICLE, FAILS TO  REPORT
 AN  INCIDENT  AS REQUIRED BY SECTION FOURTEEN HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO OF THIS
 ARTICLE, OR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ITS OWN FRONTIER AI FRAMEWORK.
   2. NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO ESTABLISH,  AUTHORIZE
 OR  CREATE  A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ASSOCIATED WITH VIOLATIONS OF THIS
 ARTICLE.
   3. NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT A LARGE FRON-
 TIER DEVELOPER FROM ASSERTING THAT ANOTHER PERSON,  ENTITY,  OR  FACTOR,
 MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ALLEGED HARM, INJURY OR DAMAGE RESULTING FROM
 A CATASTROPHIC RISK OR CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT.
   §  1428.  LARGE  FRONTIER DEVELOPER DISCLOSURE. 1. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE
 PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION,  NO  LARGE  FRONTIER  DEVELOPER  MAY  DEVELOP,
 DEPLOY,  OR  OPERATE  A  FRONTIER MODEL, IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN NEW YORK
 STATE, WITHOUT HAVING A CURRENT  DISCLOSURE  STATEMENT  FILED  WITH  THE
 OFFICE AND PAYING THE REQUIRED SHARE.
   2.  THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT SHALL BE FILED IN THE FORM AND THE MANNER
 PRESCRIBED BY THE OFFICE AND SHALL CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION  REQUIRED
 BY  THE  OFFICE. IT SHALL BE RENEWED EVERY TWO YEARS, WHENEVER OWNERSHIP
 OF THE FRONTIER MODEL IS TRANSFERRED OR WHENEVER  THERE  IS  A  MATERIAL
 CHANGE  TO  THE  INFORMATION REPORTED IN THE PREVIOUSLY FILED DISCLOSURE
 STATEMENT, WHICHEVER OCCURS EARLIER.
   3. SUCH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT SHALL IDENTIFY:
   (A) THE IDENTITY OF THE LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER AND ALL  NAMES  UNDER
 WHICH SUCH LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER CONDUCTS BUSINESS;
   (B)  THE ADDRESS OF THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AND THE ADDRESS OF
 EACH OFFICE IT MAINTAINS IN NEW YORK STATE;
   (C) IN THE EVENT SUCH LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER OR THE ULTIMATE  PARENT
 OF SUCH LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER IS A PRIVATELY OR CLOSELY HELD COMPANY,
 A  LIST  OF ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT BENEFICIALLY OWN A FIVE PERCENT
 OR GREATER INTEREST IN SUCH LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER AT THE TIME OF  THE
 FILING  OF  THE  DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND A LIST OF PERSONS WHO FORMERLY
 BENEFICIALLY OWNED A FIVE PERCENT OR GREATER INTEREST IN SUCH  OWNER  OR
 ITS PREDECESSORS IN THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS. IN THE EVENT SUCH OWNER OR
 THE  ULTIMATE PARENT IS A PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY, SUCH OWNER SHALL FILE
 A LIST OF ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT BENEFICIALLY OWN A FIFTY  PERCENT
 OR  GREATER  INTEREST  IN  THE  LARGE  FRONTIER DEVELOPER AT THE TIME OF
 REGISTRATION; AND
   (D) THE NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF A POINT OF CONTACT,  SECONDARY
 CONTACT,  AND  TERTIARY  CONTACT FOR SUCH LARGE FRONTIER DEVELOPER. SUCH
 POINT OF CONTACT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECEIVING  INQUIRIES  RELATING
 TO THIS ARTICLE FROM THE OFFICE OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
   4.  LARGE  FRONTIER DEVELOPERS SHALL BE ASSESSED IN PRO RATA SHARES BY
 THE DEPARTMENT TO DEFRAY THE OPERATING EXPENSES,  INCLUDING  ALL  DIRECT
 S. 8828                             9
 
 AND  INDIRECT  COSTS,  OF  ADMINISTERING THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THIS
 ARTICLE.
   5. IF ANY PERSON DEVELOPS, DEPLOYS, OR OPERATES A LARGE FRONTIER MODEL
 IN  PART  IN  NEW YORK STATE WITHOUT A CURRENT DISCLOSURE FILED WITH THE
 OFFICE AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION, SUBMITS  FALSE  INFORMATION  IN  ITS
 DISCLOSURE  OR FAILS TO TIMELY PAY ANY ASSESSMENT REQUIRED BY THIS ARTI-
 CLE, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY OR LIABILITY THAT MAY  BE  IMPOSED
 UNDER THIS ARTICLE, THE OFFICE MAY, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, LEVY CIVIL
 PENALTIES, FEES, AND COSTS AS FOLLOWS:
   (A)  A  CIVIL  PENALTY OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THE ENTITY
 FAILS TO FILE A DISCLOSURE AS REQUIRED  BY  THIS  SECTION  OR  FAILS  TO
 CORRECT FALSE INFORMATION; AND
   (B) AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE ASSESSMENTS OWED.
   6.  THE  OFFICE  SHALL  MAINTAIN  AND PUBLISH A LIST OF LARGE FRONTIER
 DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE FILED DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS, HOWEVER  SUCH  PUBLICA-
 TION  SHALL  NOT  INCLUDE THE CONTACT INFORMATION SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH
 (D) OF SUBDIVISION THREE OF THIS SECTION.
   § 1429. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY. 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 FACILI-
 TATE 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.
   §  3.  Section 3 of a chapter of the laws of 2025 amending the general
 business law relating to the training and use of artificial intelligence
 frontier models, as proposed in legislative bills numbers S. 6953-B  and
 A. 6453-B, is amended to read as follows:
   §  3.  This act shall take effect [on the ninetieth day after it shall
 have become a law] JANUARY 1, 2027.
   § 4. Severability. If any clause,  sentence,  paragraph,  subdivision,
 section  or part of this act shall be adjudged by any court of competent
 jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect,  impair,  or
 invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation
 to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part there-
 of  directly  involved  in  the controversy in which such judgment shall
 have been made.
   § 5. This act shall take effect immediately;  provided,  however  that
 the  provisions  of  sections  one,  two and four of this act shall take
 effect on the same date and in the same manner as a chapter of the  laws
 of  2025  amending the general business law relating to the training and
 use of artificial intelligence frontier models, as proposed in  legisla-
 tive bills numbers S. 6953-B and A. 6453-B, takes effect.