S 10701: Relates to independent safety evaluations, monitoring, reporting, security, mitigation, employee protections and enforcement relating to frontier artificial intelligence models.

  
  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.