STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
10701
IN SENATE
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:
1 Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "technical
2 evaluation, risk monitoring, incident notification, AI testing, over-
3 sight, and response act" or the "TERMINATOR Act".
4 § 2. Section 1420 of the general business law is amended by adding
5 seven new subdivisions 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 to read as follows:
6 17. "Independent safety evaluator" means a person or entity that:
7 (a) possesses technical expertise and experience appropriate to the
8 evaluation of frontier artificial intelligence models and catastrophic
9 risk;
10 (b) is not an affiliate of the large frontier developer whose frontier
11 model is being evaluated;
12 (c) has no material financial interest in such large frontier develop-
13 er other than compensation for services provided in connection with an
14 evaluation required by this article; and
15 (d) is accredited or otherwise recognized by the office pursuant to
16 standards established by the office.
17 18. "Material modification" means a modification to a frontier model
18 or the manner in which such model is deployed that could reasonably be
19 expected to materially increase a capability relevant to catastrophic
20 risk or materially reduce the effectiveness of a safeguard designed to
21 prevent or mitigate catastrophic risk.
22 19. "Significant safety incident" means an event involving a frontier
23 model that materially increases catastrophic risk or provides credible
24 evidence of a capability, vulnerability, failure, circumvention, or
25 compromise of a safety, security, or control mechanism that could mate-
26 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
1 not result in death, bodily injury, property damage, or the materializa-
2 tion of catastrophic risk.
3 20. "Privileged frontier model access" means access to a frontier
4 model that materially exceeds access generally provided to users of such
5 model and that could materially increase catastrophic risk, including
6 access to model weights, internal model checkpoints, a version of a
7 model with safeguards disabled or materially reduced, privileged fine-
8 tuning capabilities, or elevated authority to access external tools,
9 systems, credentials, or computing resources.
10 21. "Risk-based catastrophic risk monitoring" means a program reason-
11 ably designed, in light of the capabilities, deployment context, and
12 reasonably foreseeable uses of a frontier model, to detect significant
13 safety incidents, material changes in capabilities relevant to
14 catastrophic risk, and material failures or circumvention of safeguards
15 designed to prevent or mitigate catastrophic risk.
16 22. "Tamper-evident" means maintained using technical controls reason-
17 ably designed to permit detection of unauthorized alteration or
18 deletion.
19 23. "Catastrophic harm" means death, serious injury, property damage,
20 or loss of property of the nature and magnitude described in subdivision
21 three of this section arising from conduct described in such subdivi-
22 sion.
23 § 3. Paragraph (b) of subdivision 3 of section 1421 of the general
24 business law, as added by chapter 96 of the laws of 2026, is amended to
25 read as follows:
26 (b) Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a
27 substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a large
28 frontier developer shall include in the transparency report required by
29 paragraph (a) of this subdivision, summaries of all of the following:
30 (i) assessments of catastrophic risks from the frontier model
31 conducted pursuant to the large frontier developer's frontier AI frame-
32 work;
33 (ii) the results of the assessments under subparagraph (i) of this
34 paragraph;
35 (iii) the extent to which third-party evaluators were involved; [and]
36 (iv) other steps taken to fulfill the requirements of the frontier AI
37 framework with respect to the frontier model; and
38 (v) a summary of the material findings, limitations, uncertainties,
39 identified capabilities, safeguard performance, and identified
40 catastrophic risks contained in any independent safety evaluation
41 required pursuant to section fourteen hundred thirty or fourteen hundred
42 thirty-one of this article. Nothing in this subparagraph shall require
43 publication of information that may be redacted pursuant to subdivision
44 five of this section.
45 § 4. Subdivision 2 of section 1422 of the general business law is
46 amended by adding a new paragraph (c), and three new subdivisions 3-a,
47 3-b and 11 are added to read as follows:
48 (c) A large frontier developer shall, together with each summary of an
49 assessment of catastrophic risk transmitted pursuant to this subdivi-
50 sion, provide, to the extent reasonably available, technical information
51 reasonably necessary for the office to evaluate the basis for such
52 assessment, including, as applicable, relevant evaluation results, moni-
53 toring outputs, model outputs or trajectories, safety or security test-
54 ing results, and other technical information supporting such assessment.
55 3-a. (a) A large frontier developer shall report a significant safety
56 incident pertaining to one or more of its frontier models to the office
S. 10701 3
1 as soon as practicable but in no event later than seven days after
2 determining that such incident has occurred or learning facts sufficient
3 to establish a reasonable belief that such incident has occurred.
4 (b) Nothing in this subdivision shall alter a more expeditious report-
5 ing requirement applicable to a critical safety incident pursuant to
6 subdivision three of this section.
7 (c) Information submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall be
8 subject to the same confidentiality, disclosure, and information-sharing
9 protections applicable to critical safety incident reports under this
10 section.
11 (d) No large frontier developer shall knowingly structure or adminis-
12 ter its monitoring, incident-review, investigation, or recordkeeping
13 practices for the purpose of avoiding the detection or reporting of a
14 significant safety incident or critical safety incident required to be
15 reported under this article.
16 3-b. Any report by a large frontier developer of a significant safety
17 incident required pursuant to subdivision three-a of this section or a
18 critical safety incident required pursuant to subdivision three of this
19 section shall include, to the extent reasonably available:
20 (a) the date and nature of the incident;
21 (b) the frontier model or models involved;
22 (c) the capability, vulnerability, safety mechanism, security mech-
23 anism, or control implicated by the incident;
24 (d) the large frontier developer's assessment of the actual or poten-
25 tial consequences of the incident;
26 (e) corrective or mitigating action taken or planned by the large
27 frontier developer; and
28 (f) technical information reasonably necessary for the office to
29 assess the nature, cause, and significance of the incident, including,
30 where applicable, relevant logs, model outputs, agent trajectories, tool
31 calls, monitoring outputs, security alerts, and evaluation results.
32 11. Notwithstanding subdivisions eight and nine of this section,
33 compliance with a federal law, regulation, or guidance document desig-
34 nated by the office as satisfying a reporting requirement under this
35 section shall not relieve a large frontier developer of the obligation
36 to provide the information required pursuant to subdivision three-b of
37 this section, except to the extent that substantially equivalent infor-
38 mation has been transmitted to the office pursuant to such federal
39 reporting regime.
40 § 5. The general business law is amended by adding seven new sections
41 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435 and 1436 to read as follows:
42 § 1430. Independent frontier model safety evaluations. 1. A large
43 frontier developer shall, before first deploying a frontier model in
44 whole or in part in this state, cause an independent safety evaluator to
45 conduct a technical evaluation of such model's capabilities, safeguards,
46 and potential to materially contribute to catastrophic risk.
47 2. An evaluation required pursuant to this section shall include tech-
48 nical testing, including adversarial testing where appropriate, and
49 shall separately assess where applicable:
50 (a) capabilities of the underlying frontier model;
51 (b) capabilities reasonably accessible under the intended deployment
52 configuration; and
53 (c) the effectiveness and circumvention resistance of safeguards sepa-
54 rating underlying capabilities from those reasonably accessible under
55 the intended deployment configuration.
56 3. An evaluation shall assess, at a minimum:
S. 10701 4
1 (a) capabilities that could materially assist in the development,
2 production, or release of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear
3 weapons;
4 (b) offensive cyber capabilities that could materially contribute to
5 catastrophic risk;
6 (c) capacity to autonomously replicate, propagate, persist, or acquire
7 computing resources or credentials;
8 (d) capacity to evade, circumvent, or subvert material controls
9 imposed by a developer or user;
10 (e) capacity to engage in material deceptive behavior, conceal materi-
11 al capabilities, or manipulate or evade safety evaluations or monitor-
12 ing;
13 (f) capacity to materially assist in its own development or improve-
14 ment, or the development or improvement of another frontier model, in a
15 manner that could materially increase catastrophic risk;
16 (g) effectiveness and resilience of safeguards designed to prevent or
17 mitigate catastrophic risk, including susceptibility of such safeguards
18 to circumvention; and
19 (h) other capabilities or safeguards relevant to catastrophic risk as
20 the office may designate by regulation.
21 The requirements of paragraphs (a) through (g) of this subdivision
22 constitute minimum requirements and may not be waived or eliminated by
23 regulation.
24 4. A large frontier developer shall provide the independent safety
25 evaluator access reasonably necessary to conduct a meaningful technical
26 evaluation, including, where reasonably necessary, access to relevant
27 model checkpoints, interfaces, documentation, testing environments,
28 fine-tuning capabilities, and versions or configurations of the model in
29 which safeguards are disabled or materially reduced.
30 5. The independent safety evaluator shall prepare a written report
31 describing the methodology, material findings, limitations, uncertain-
32 ties, identified capabilities, safeguard performance, and identified
33 catastrophic risks. An unredacted copy shall be transmitted to the
34 office.
35 6. A large frontier developer shall pay the reasonable costs of an
36 evaluation required pursuant to this section. Compensation of an inde-
37 pendent safety evaluator shall not be contingent upon the results or
38 conclusions of an evaluation.
39 7. Nothing in this section shall require or authorize an independent
40 safety evaluator to certify that a frontier model is safe or free from
41 catastrophic risk.
42 8. (a) The office shall establish by regulation minimum qualifica-
43 tions, technical competency, independence, conflict-of-interest, profes-
44 sional conduct and ethical standards, cybersecurity, confidentiality,
45 personnel-access, information-storage and destruction, and incident-re-
46 porting requirements for independent safety evaluators.
47 (b) Such regulations shall establish standards reasonably designed to
48 ensure the independence, integrity, and professional judgment of inde-
49 pendent safety evaluators, including standards governing financial
50 interests, financial dependence, prior or concurrent professional
51 relationships, compensation arrangements, and other circumstances that
52 could reasonably be expected to impair an evaluator's independent
53 professional judgment.
54 (c) Such regulations shall provide a means for temporary recognition
55 of otherwise qualified evaluators where necessary to ensure adequate
56 evaluator capacity.
S. 10701 5
1 9. The office may reject or revoke the accreditation or recognition of
2 an independent safety evaluator upon a finding that such evaluator lacks
3 the technical competence, independence, security practices, professional
4 integrity, or other qualifications required pursuant to this section,
5 and may require a large frontier developer to retain a different inde-
6 pendent safety evaluator.
7 10. The office may determine that an independent technical safety
8 evaluation conducted pursuant to a federal law, regulation, or other
9 governmental regulatory regime satisfies all or part of the requirements
10 of this section where the office determines that such evaluation is
11 substantially equivalent to or more stringent than the requirements of
12 this article. The office may require supplemental evaluation of any
13 capability, safeguard, or risk required to be assessed under this arti-
14 cle but not adequately assessed by such evaluation. An evaluation
15 performed solely pursuant to a developer's internal policy or voluntary
16 safety framework shall not qualify under this subdivision solely because
17 such evaluation was conducted or commissioned by the developer.
18 11. A frontier model deployed in whole or in part in this state before
19 the effective date of this section shall receive the evaluation required
20 by this section within one hundred eighty days after such effective
21 date.
22 § 1431. Material modifications and reevaluation. 1. Following the
23 initial evaluation required by section fourteen hundred thirty of this
24 article, a large frontier developer shall cause an additional independ-
25 ent safety evaluation to be conducted before deploying a material
26 modification to a frontier model in whole or in part in this state.
27 2. A large frontier developer shall make an initial determination as
28 to whether a proposed modification constitutes a material modification.
29 In making such determination, the developer shall consider the cumula-
30 tive effect of related modifications made since the most recent inde-
31 pendent safety evaluation, regardless of whether any individual modifi-
32 cation would independently constitute a material modification. The
33 developer shall document the basis for its determination and retain such
34 documentation for not less than five years.
35 3. The office may review a determination made pursuant to subdivision
36 two of this section. Where the office determines, based upon reasonable
37 evidence, that a modification constitutes a material modification, the
38 office may require an independent safety evaluation.
39 4. An additional independent safety evaluation shall also be required
40 where:
41 (a) the developer discovers a material new capability relevant to
42 catastrophic risk;
43 (b) credible external evidence demonstrates a material catastrophic-
44 risk capability not adequately assessed in a prior evaluation; or
45 (c) a significant safety incident or critical safety incident reason-
46 ably indicates that a prior evaluation or existing safeguard may no
47 longer adequately characterize or mitigate catastrophic risk.
48 5. An evaluation required pursuant to subdivision four of this section
49 shall be commenced as soon as practicable following the occurrence or
50 discovery of the applicable circumstance and completed within a reason-
51 able period prescribed by the office, taking into account the nature and
52 severity of the potential catastrophic risk.
53 § 1432. Post-deployment monitoring. 1. A large frontier developer that
54 deploys a frontier model in whole or in part in this state shall estab-
55 lish, implement, and maintain risk-based catastrophic-risk monitoring
S. 10701 6
1 for such model to the extent the developer maintains reasonable techni-
2 cal or operational control over the model or deployment.
3 2. Such monitoring shall, to the extent technically feasible and
4 reasonably necessary in light of the capabilities and deployment context
5 of the model, be designed to detect conduct or events relevant to iden-
6 tifying a significant safety incident, critical safety incident, or
7 material change in catastrophic risk, including:
8 (a) attempts to circumvent safeguards designed to prevent or mitigate
9 catastrophic risk;
10 (b) anomalous autonomous behavior;
11 (c) unauthorized access to or use of external tools, systems, creden-
12 tials, or computing resources;
13 (d) unauthorized replication, propagation, or persistence;
14 (e) material deceptive behavior directed at safety controls, evalu-
15 ations, or monitoring;
16 (f) material model-weight security incidents; and
17 (g) material changes in capabilities relevant to catastrophic risk.
18 3. Monitoring conducted pursuant to this section shall, to the extent
19 reasonably feasible consistent with the effective detection and investi-
20 gation of catastrophic risk, minimize the collection and retention of
21 personally identifiable information and ordinary user prompts,
22 responses, and communications unrelated to catastrophic risk.
23 4. The office may promulgate regulations establishing minimum perform-
24 ance, documentation, data-minimization, security, and review require-
25 ments for monitoring required pursuant to this section, provided that
26 such regulations shall be risk-based and proportionate to the capabili-
27 ties and deployment context of a frontier model.
28 5. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require generalized
29 monitoring, logging, or retention of the content of ordinary user
30 prompts, responses, or communications.
31 6. Nothing in this section shall require a large frontier developer to
32 monitor an independently controlled copy or derivative of a frontier
33 model after model weights have been lawfully transferred or publicly
34 released where the developer no longer retains reasonable technical or
35 operational control over such copy or derivative. Nothing in this
36 subdivision shall limit any obligation applicable to the decision to
37 release or transfer model weights under this article.
38 § 1433. Tamper-evident safety records. 1. A large frontier developer
39 shall create and maintain tamper-evident records sufficient to recon-
40 struct material actions relevant to catastrophic-risk safety or securi-
41 ty, including:
42 (a) access to, copying of, or transfer of model weights;
43 (b) material modification, disabling, or removal of safeguards
44 designed to prevent or mitigate catastrophic risk;
45 (c) deployment or use of a version or configuration of a frontier
46 model with materially reduced safeguards;
47 (d) privileged frontier model access;
48 (e) material changes to a frontier model's authority to access
49 external tools, systems, credentials, or computing resources; and
50 (f) material safety or security alerts and actions taken in response
51 thereto.
52 2. Records required pursuant to this section shall be retained for not
53 less than five years and shall be protected using reasonable administra-
54 tive, technical, and physical safeguards against unauthorized access,
55 use, alteration, disclosure, or destruction.
S. 10701 7
1 3. Such records shall be made available to the office or attorney
2 general upon request where reasonably necessary to investigate or verify
3 compliance with this article.
4 4. The office may establish by regulation minimum security and
5 access-control requirements for records required pursuant to this
6 section.
7 5. Nothing in this article shall require the logging or retention of
8 the content of ordinary user prompts, responses, or communications sole-
9 ly for purposes of compliance with this section.
10 § 1434. Privileged frontier model access and model-weight release. 1.
11 A large frontier developer that provides privileged frontier model
12 access shall establish, implement, and maintain a written security
13 program reasonably designed to prevent such access from materially
14 increasing catastrophic risk.
15 2. Where privileged frontier model access is provided to a third
16 party, the large frontier developer shall, as a condition of providing
17 such access, require by contract that such third party comply with secu-
18 rity requirements reasonably appropriate to the nature and level of
19 access provided.
20 3. The security program required pursuant to subdivision one of this
21 section shall include, as appropriate:
22 (a) identity verification and access controls;
23 (b) application of the principle of least privilege;
24 (c) multifactor or comparably secure authentication;
25 (d) logging and periodic review of privileged access;
26 (e) security requirements for systems used to access or store model
27 weights;
28 (f) credential and key management;
29 (g) procedures for prompt suspension or revocation of access; and
30 (h) incident detection and reporting.
31 4. A large frontier developer shall maintain reasonable procedures to
32 verify compliance with the requirements of this section and shall
33 promptly suspend or modify privileged frontier model access where it
34 reasonably determines that continued access would create a material and
35 unreasonable risk of catastrophic harm.
36 5. Prior to publicly releasing, broadly distributing, or otherwise
37 transferring model weights in a manner reasonably expected to materially
38 diminish the developer's ability to maintain or enforce safeguards
39 against catastrophic risk, a large frontier developer shall ensure that
40 the consequences of such release or transfer have been assessed as part
41 of an independent safety evaluation required pursuant to this article.
42 Such evaluation shall consider, as applicable, the extent to which safe-
43 guards may become unavailable, removable, or circumventable following
44 the release or transfer and the reasonably foreseeable catastrophic
45 risks arising from the inability of the developer to control downstream
46 copies or derivatives.
47 6. The office shall promulgate regulations establishing minimum
48 cybersecurity standards pursuant to this section and shall, to the
49 extent practicable, consider applicable federal standards and generally
50 accepted cybersecurity practices.
51 § 1435. Mitigation of material and unreasonable catastrophic risk. 1.
52 Where an independent safety evaluation, significant safety incident,
53 critical safety incident, post-deployment monitoring, or other credible
54 evidence provides a reasonable basis to determine that deployment or
55 operation of a frontier model presents a material and unreasonable risk
S. 10701 8
1 of catastrophic harm, a large frontier developer shall implement safe-
2 guards reasonably sufficient to mitigate such risk.
3 2. In determining whether a risk is material and unreasonable, the
4 office shall consider, as applicable:
5 (a) the severity and scale of reasonably foreseeable harm;
6 (b) the likelihood of such harm based upon available technical and
7 empirical evidence;
8 (c) demonstrated capabilities of the frontier model;
9 (d) accessibility of a capability relevant to catastrophic risk;
10 (e) effectiveness, resilience, and circumvention resistance of appli-
11 cable safeguards;
12 (f) degree of autonomy of the model and its access to external tools,
13 systems, credentials, or computing resources;
14 (g) context and scale of deployment; and
15 (h) reasonably foreseeable misuse.
16 3. The mere theoretical possibility that a frontier model could
17 contribute to catastrophic harm shall not, standing alone, constitute a
18 material and unreasonable risk of catastrophic harm.
19 4. Where the office determines, based upon reasonable evidence, that a
20 frontier model presents a material and unreasonable risk of catastrophic
21 harm, the office may require additional independent evaluation, enhanced
22 monitoring or reporting, or additional or modified technical or adminis-
23 trative safeguards reasonably necessary and proportionate to the identi-
24 fied risk.
25 5. Where the office determines that a specific capability, tool,
26 deployment configuration, privileged-access arrangement, or transfer or
27 distribution of model weights presents a material and unreasonable risk
28 of catastrophic harm, the office may temporarily restrict such activity
29 upon written findings that:
30 (a) identify the material and unreasonable risk;
31 (b) identify the evidence supporting such determination;
32 (c) establish a direct relationship between the activity restricted
33 and the identified risk; and
34 (d) determine that less restrictive measures would be inadequate to
35 reasonably mitigate such risk.
36 6. Except as provided in subdivision seven of this section, prior to
37 imposing a restriction pursuant to subdivision five of this section, the
38 office shall provide the large frontier developer with notice of the
39 proposed restriction, the material basis therefor, and a reasonable
40 opportunity to respond.
41 7. Where the office determines that providing prior notice and an
42 opportunity to respond would materially increase an imminent risk of
43 catastrophic harm, the office may impose a restriction pursuant to
44 subdivision five of this section without prior notice. The office shall
45 promptly thereafter provide the developer with the written findings
46 supporting such restriction and an expedited opportunity to respond and
47 seek review.
48 8. A restriction imposed pursuant to subdivision five or seven of this
49 section shall remain effective for no longer than thirty days unless
50 renewed by the office upon updated written findings satisfying the
51 requirements of subdivision five of this section. Where a restriction
52 imposed pursuant to subdivision five or seven of this section remains in
53 effect for more than sixty days in the aggregate, the office shall refer
54 the matter to the attorney general for review. Such referral shall not
55 require the attorney general to commence an action, shall not independ-
56 ently alter the duration or validity of the restriction, and shall not
S. 10701 9
1 limit the authority of the office to renew such restriction in accord-
2 ance with this subdivision.
3 9. In determining an appropriate measure under this section, the
4 office shall consider the availability and likely effectiveness of less
5 restrictive measures. Nothing in this subdivision shall require the
6 office to impose or exhaust a less restrictive measure that it reason-
7 ably determines would be inadequate.
8 10. Where the office determines, based upon substantial evidence, that
9 deployment or operation of a frontier model presents an imminent and
10 unreasonable risk of catastrophic harm and that less restrictive meas-
11 ures would be inadequate, the office may refer such determination to the
12 attorney general.
13 11. Upon a referral pursuant to subdivision ten of this section, the
14 attorney general may commence an action in the supreme court for tempo-
15 rary or permanent injunctive relief necessary and proportionate to
16 prevent or mitigate such risk, including, where necessary, restriction
17 of deployment or operation of the frontier model in this state.
18 § 1436. Protected safety disclosures and independent safety research.
19 1. No large frontier developer, or contractor or subcontractor thereof,
20 shall discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, discriminate, or
21 otherwise retaliate against an employee or contractor because such
22 employee or contractor, based upon a reasonable belief, discloses infor-
23 mation concerning:
24 (a) a violation of this article;
25 (b) a significant safety incident or critical safety incident;
26 (c) a material misrepresentation or omission concerning an independent
27 safety evaluation, frontier AI framework, or compliance with this arti-
28 cle;
29 (d) interference with or manipulation of an independent safety evalu-
30 ation; or
31 (e) a material and unreasonable risk of catastrophic harm.
32 2. The protections of this section shall apply to a disclosure made to
33 the large frontier developer, an independent safety evaluator, the
34 office, the attorney general, or an appropriate federal, state, or local
35 governmental entity.
36 3. No agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment or contract-
37 ing may prohibit or restrict a disclosure protected by this section. Any
38 such provision shall be void and unenforceable to the extent of such
39 prohibition or restriction.
40 4. The office shall establish a secure mechanism through which an
41 employee or contractor may confidentially report alleged retaliation or
42 information described in subdivision one of this section. The office may
43 investigate such complaint, request or obtain information reasonably
44 necessary to assess the complaint pursuant to its authority under this
45 article, and refer its findings to the attorney general.
46 5. A violation of this section shall constitute a violation of this
47 article enforceable by the attorney general. In an action brought pursu-
48 ant to this article, the attorney general may seek, in addition to any
49 other relief authorized by law, reinstatement, back pay, lost compen-
50 sation, restitution, injunctive relief, and other equitable relief
51 reasonably necessary to remedy retaliation.
52 6. Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a private
53 right of action.
54 7. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit or impose
55 liability solely because a person conducts authorized, good-faith safety
56 or security research in accordance with applicable law and reasonable
S. 10701 10
1 security controls. Nothing in this subdivision shall exempt any person
2 from otherwise applicable requirements relating to unauthorized access,
3 disclosure of protected information, or conduct creating a material and
4 unreasonable risk of catastrophic harm.
5 § 6. Section 1427 of the general business law is amended by adding
6 five new subdivisions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to read as follows:
7 4. In addition to any other penalty authorized by this article, the
8 attorney general may bring a civil action to recover a civil penalty not
9 to exceed one-half of one percent of annual gross revenue where a large
10 frontier developer knowingly:
11 (a) falsifies or materially conceals information required to be
12 reported or transmitted pursuant to this article;
13 (b) conceals a significant safety incident required to be reported
14 pursuant to this article;
15 (c) destroys, alters, or causes the destruction or alteration of a
16 record required to be maintained pursuant to this article for the
17 purpose of impeding oversight or enforcement;
18 (d) materially interferes with an independent safety evaluation
19 required pursuant to this article;
20 (e) denies an independent safety evaluator access that such developer
21 knows is required pursuant to this article; or
22 (f) coerces, threatens, or retaliates against a person for the purpose
23 of preventing a report, disclosure, or transmission required or
24 protected by this article.
25 5. The attorney general may bring a civil action to recover a civil
26 penalty not to exceed one percent of annual gross revenue where a large
27 frontier developer:
28 (a) willfully conceals a critical safety incident required to be
29 reported pursuant to this article; or
30 (b) willfully and repeatedly engages in conduct described in subdivi-
31 sion four of this section with the specific intent to conceal material
32 information or frustrate oversight or enforcement under this article.
33 6. For purposes of subdivisions four and five of this section, "annual
34 gross revenue" means the gross revenue, during the most recently
35 completed fiscal year preceding the violation, of the large frontier
36 developer and any affiliate that materially participated in, controlled,
37 directed, or provided material support for the development, deployment,
38 operation, distribution, or provision of access to the frontier model
39 giving rise to the violation.
40 7. Where the attorney general establishes that a reorganization,
41 transfer of assets, allocation of revenue, change in corporate form,
42 creation or use of an affiliate, or other transaction or arrangement was
43 undertaken in substantial part for the purpose of avoiding or materially
44 reducing a penalty authorized by this section, the court may determine
45 annual gross revenue without regard to such transaction or arrangement
46 to the extent necessary to prevent such evasion.
47 8. A good-faith legal, scientific, or technical disagreement concern-
48 ing whether an incident is reportable, whether information or access is
49 required or reasonably necessary under this article, or the nature or
50 severity of a risk shall not, standing alone, constitute concealment,
51 obstruction, or interference for purposes of subdivisions four or five
52 of this section.
53 § 7. Subdivision 4 of section 1428 of the general business law, as
54 added by chapter 96 of the laws of 2026, is amended to read as follows:
55 4. Large frontier developers shall be assessed in pro rata shares by
56 the department to defray the operating expenses, including all direct
S. 10701 11
1 and indirect costs, of administering the obligations imposed by this
2 article. Such costs may include, but shall not be limited to, costs
3 associated with the accreditation, recognition, and oversight of inde-
4 pendent safety evaluators; technical personnel; contracts with technical
5 experts, laboratories, academic institutions, or other qualified enti-
6 ties; investigations; rulemaking; post-deployment monitoring oversight;
7 information security; and enforcement.
8 § 8. Section 1429 of the general business law, as added by chapter 96
9 of the laws of 2026, is amended to read as follows:
10 § 1429. Rulemaking authority. 1. The office is hereby authorized to
11 adopt rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this article
12 as needed. To the extent the office determines that doing so will facil-
13 itate safety and transparency consistent with the underlying purpose of
14 this article, the office may consider additional reporting or publica-
15 tion requirements for information to facilitate safety and transparency,
16 including but not limited to, post-critical safety incident information,
17 sharing plans and protocols, and the transmission of frontier AI frame-
18 works to the office.
19 2. The office may promulgate such additional rules and regulations as
20 are necessary to implement sections fourteen hundred thirty through
21 fourteen hundred thirty-six of this article.
22 3. In promulgating and periodically reviewing rules and regulations
23 pursuant to this article, the office shall consult, as appropriate, with
24 federal agencies and standard-setting bodies, independent technical
25 experts, academic institutions, civil society organizations, frontier
26 developers, independent safety evaluators, cybersecurity experts, and
27 other persons with relevant expertise.
28 4. The office may enter into contracts or agreements with technical
29 experts, laboratories, academic institutions, or other qualified enti-
30 ties as reasonably necessary to administer and enforce this article.
31 Nothing in this subdivision shall authorize the office to delegate to a
32 private entity a final regulatory or enforcement determination vested in
33 the office by this article.
34 5. The office may adopt procedures governing determinations of
35 substantial equivalence pursuant to section fourteen hundred thirty of
36 this article and may enter into appropriate information-sharing or coop-
37 erative arrangements with federal agencies or other governmental regula-
38 tors, provided that confidential information remains subject to
39 protections required by this article and applicable law.
40 § 9. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
41 section, or part of this act, or the application thereof to any person
42 or circumstance, shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdic-
43 tion to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invali-
44 date the remainder thereof or the application thereof to other persons
45 or circumstances.
46 § 10. This act shall take effect one year after it shall have become a
47 law; provided, however, that if chapter 96 of the laws of 2026 shall not
48 have taken effect on or before such date then this act shall take effect
49 one year after such chapter takes effect.
