[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9925 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 9925
To provide for Federal oversight of the development and deployment of
frontier artificial intelligence in interstate and foreign commerce,
and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 23, 2026
Mr. Obernolte (for himself, Mrs. Trahan, Mrs. Houchin, Mr. Peters, Mr.
Scott Franklin of Florida, and Mr. Subramanyam) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,
in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To provide for Federal oversight of the development and deployment of
frontier artificial intelligence in interstate and foreign commerce,
and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Frontier Risk Oversight, National
Transparency, Independent Evaluation, and Reporting Act'' or the
``FRONTIER Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Acceptable levels of catastrophic risk mitigation.--The
term ``acceptable levels of catastrophic risk mitigation''
means risk mitigation adequate to ensure that the anticipated
benefits of a frontier model made available or used in
interstate or foreign commerce outweigh its level of
catastrophic risk, taking into consideration the probability
and magnitude of the model's anticipated benefits and
catastrophic risks.
(2) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' means an entity that
satisfies any of the following requirements:
(A) Controls another entity through an
intermediary.
(B) Is through such intermediary controlled by such
other entity.
(C) Is through such intermediary under common
control with such other entity.
(3) AI; artificial intelligence; artificial intelligence
model.--The terms ``AI'', ``artificial intelligence'', and
``artificial intelligence model'' have the meaning given such
terms in section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence
Initiative Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 9401).
(4) AI-related development expenditures.--The term ``AI-
related development expenditures'' means amounts paid or
incurred in interstate or foreign commerce, without regard to
whether such amounts are expensed, capitalized, deducted, or
amortized for financial reporting or tax purposes, that are
attributable to artificial intelligence development, training,
fine-tuning, modification, security, or evaluation.
(5) Assessment.--The term ``assessment'' means a review
conducted by an IVO licensed under section 5 to assess the
adequacy of a very large frontier developer's frontier AI
framework, governance policies and practices, risk-monitoring,
and mitigation of detected risks for achieving acceptable
levels of catastrophic risk mitigation.
(6) Catastrophic risk.--The term ``catastrophic risk''
means--
(A) 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 50 people, or
more than $1,000,000,000 in damage to, or loss of,
property, arising from a single incident involving a
frontier model doing any of the following:
(i) providing, in the development or
release of a chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, or cyber weapon,
assistance that is not publicly available;
(ii) engaging in conduct with no meaningful
human oversight or intervention, that--
(I) is a cyberattack; or
(II) if such conduct is committed
by an individual, would constitute
murder, assault, extortion, or theft,
including such theft by false pretense;
or
(iii) evading control of such developer or
a user of such model; and
(B) 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 software if such model
did not materially contribute to the harm.
(7) Critical safety incident.--The term ``critical safety
incident'' means any of the following:
(A) Unauthorized access to, modification of, or
exfiltration of, the model weights of a frontier model.
(B) Harm resulting from the materialization of a
catastrophic risk.
(C) Loss of control of such model.
(D) A frontier model using deceptive techniques
against its frontier developer to subvert the controls
or monitoring of such developer, outside the context of
an evaluation designed to elicit such behavior, in a
manner that demonstrates materially increased
catastrophic risk.
(8) Deploy.--The term ``deploy'' means--
(A) to make a frontier model available in
interstate or foreign commerce to a third party for
use, modification, copying, or combination with other
software; and
(B) does not include making such model available to
such third party for the primary purpose of developing
or evaluating such model.
(9) Foundation model.--The term ``foundation model'' means
an artificial intelligence model made available or used in
interstate or foreign commerce that is all of the following:
(A) Trained on a broad data set.
(B) Designed for generality of output.
(C) Adaptable to a wide range of distinctive tasks.
(10) Frontier ai framework.--The term ``frontier AI
framework'' means documented technical and organizational
protocols to manage, assess, and mitigate catastrophic risks.
(11) Frontier developer.--The term ``frontier developer''
means an entity operating in interstate or foreign commerce
that has trained, or initiated the training of, a frontier
model using a quantity of computing power that meets the
technical specifications set forth in subsection (l).
(12) Frontier model.--The term ``frontier model'' means a
foundation model that was trained using a quantity of computing
power greater than 10-26 integer or floating-point operations.
The quantity of computing power described in this paragraph
includes computing for the original training run and for any
subsequent fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, or other
substantial modification the developer applies to a preceding
foundation model.
(13) Imminent catastrophic risk.--The term ``imminent
catastrophic risk'' means a present or impending catastrophic
risk.
(14) IVO.--The term ``IVO'' means an independent
verification organization operating in interstate or foreign
commerce that is licensed under subsection (c) of section 5 and
the regulations prescribed under subsection (c) of section 3.
(15) Large frontier developer.--The term ``large frontier
developer'' means a frontier developer that, together with its
affiliates, collectively, during the preceding 36-month period,
determined as of the first day of each calendar month, both--
(A) had gross revenues in excess of $50,000,000;
and
(B) incurred not less than $1,000,000,000 in AI-
related development expenditures.
(16) Material modification.--The term ``material
modification'' means with respect to a frontier AI framework, a
significant change to such framework, including a significant
change in the assessment, mitigation, or management of
catastrophic risk carried out pursuant to such framework.
(17) Model weight.--The term ``model weight'' means a
numerical parameter that satisfies the following requirements:
(A) Is in a frontier model.
(B) Is adjusted through training.
(C) Facilitates the determination of how input data
for such model is transformed into an output of such
model.
(18) Property.--The term ``property'' includes--
(A) tangible or intangible property; and
(B) does not include the loss of value of equity.
(19) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Commerce.
(20) Substantial modification.--The term ``substantial
modification'' means with respect to a frontier model, a
significant change in how such model is deployed, such as
enabling a new fine-tuning capability for, releasing a model
weight of, or adding a new feature to such model, that
necessitates for such model an assessment of catastrophic risk.
(21) Under secretary.--The term ``Under Secretary'' means
the Under Secretary of Commerce for AI Security, who shall be
appointed by the Secretary.
(22) Very large frontier developer.--The term ``very large
frontier developer'' means a frontier developer that, together
with its affiliates, collectively, during the preceding 36-
month period, determined as of the first day of each calendar
month, both--
(A) had gross revenues in excess of $5,000,000,000;
and
(B) incurred not less than $10,000,000,000 in AI-
related development expenditures.
SEC. 3. RULEMAKING.
(a) Procedure.--Each regulation prescribed under this Act shall be
prescribed in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States
Code.
(b) Framework Requirements.--
(1) Deadline.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary shall issue, and
thereafter update as appropriate, regulations establishing
minimum requirements for frontier AI frameworks.
(2) Contents.--Regulations issued under this subsection
shall, at a minimum, address each of the requirements of
section 4(a).
(3) Periodic review.--The Under Secretary shall review the
regulations issued under this subsection not less frequently
than once every year, and shall update such regulations as the
Under Secretary determines to be necessary or appropriate.
(c) IVO Licensing and Oversight.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary shall prescribe
regulations necessary to carry out the licensing and oversight of IVOs
under section 5, which shall include the following:
(1) Conflict-of-interest and funding-transparency
requirements, including reporting requirements regarding the
IVOs' funding sources and revenue generation and self-audit
requirements regarding the IVOs' personnel and leadership to
ensure adequate independence from the artificial intelligence
industry.
(2) Procedures and requirements for entities to apply for
licensure as an IVO, including the following:
(A) Procedures and requirements for the applicant
to submit a plan to the Under Secretary detailing--
(i) the benchmarks, technologies, metrics,
and methodologies the applicant proposes using
to assess the adequacy of the frontier
developer's frontier AI framework, governance
policies and practices, risk-monitoring, and
mitigation of detected risks, to ensure
acceptable levels of catastrophic risk
mitigation;
(ii) the applicant's proposed procedure for
prescribing and assessing implementation of
corrective action to remedy any identified
deficiency in achieving acceptable levels of
catastrophic risk mitigation;
(iii) the applicant's proposed methodology
for ensuring that the benchmarks, technologies,
metrics, and methodologies proposed in clause
(i) keep pace with technological and
organizational changes in frontier model
development;
(iv) any subcontractors that the applicant
proposes to use to carry out its
responsibilities under this Act; and
(v) the technical qualifications of the
personnel the applicant proposes to use to
conduct assessments and of any subcontractor
the applicant plans to engage under subsection
(d) of section 5 to perform any portion of an
assessment.
(B) Findings required for the Under Secretary to
license an applicant as an IVO, including--
(i) that the applicant has demonstrated its
independence from the artificial intelligence
industry; and
(ii) that every element of the applicant's
plan is adequate to ensure that frontier models
assessed by the IVO achieve acceptable levels
of catastrophic risk mitigation.
(C) Findings that require the Under Secretary to
revoke an IVO's license, including--
(i) that the IVO's plan is materially
misleading or inaccurate;
(ii) that the IVO fails to adhere to its
plan in a manner that materially impairs its
ability to fulfill its responsibilities;
(iii) that a material change compromises
the IVO's independence from the artificial
intelligence industry;
(iv) that models verified by the IVO fail
to achieve or have failed to achieve acceptable
levels of catastrophic risk mitigation, unless
the IVO demonstrates that--
(I) the IVO identified the relevant
failure, deficiency, or material
weakness in an assessment report
submitted under subsection (f) of
section 5 or a supplemental report
submitted under subsection (i) of such
section, and recommended corrective
actions adequate to achieve acceptable
levels of catastrophic risk mitigation;
and
(II) such failure is attributable
to the very large frontier developer's
failure to implement such corrective
actions, and not to any deficiency in
the IVO's assessment, methods, or
performance of its obligations under
section 5;
(v) that evolution of technology renders
the IVO's methods obsolete for verifying
acceptable mitigation of catastrophic risk; and
(vi) that the IVO has failed to comply with
its obligations under section 5.
(D) Procedures for the formation of expert panels
with respect to one or more specific catastrophic risks
to advise the Under Secretary on the issuance and
revocation of IVO licenses.
(3) Minimum requirements for assessments, taking into
account relevant approaches, best practices, frameworks, and
methods.
(4) Provisions regarding circumstances mandating corrective
action or loss of license.
(5) Rules regarding the submission and processing of
assessment reports, including a secure method for submission of
assessment reports under subsection (f), subsection (g), and
subsection (i) of section 5 and other sensitive information,
and a process for securely processing sensitive information and
protecting trade secrets.
(6) Any other rules reasonably necessary to the
administration of the IVO oversight and licensing regime
described in section 5.
(d) Modification Criteria.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary shall prescribe
regulations establishing criteria for determining whether a
modification to a frontier model constitutes a substantial modification
within the meaning of subsection (t) of section 2, and whether a
modification to a frontier AI framework constitutes a material
modification within the meaning of subsection (p) of section 2.
(e) Procedures for Reports, Redactions, and State Opt-In.--The
Under Secretary may prescribe regulations establishing--
(1) the approaches, formats, and procedures applicable to
publications, reports, and submissions required under sections
4 and 5;
(2) procedures applicable to redactions made under
subsection (f) of section 4 and subsection (m) of section 5,
including standards for justifications required under
subsection (f)(2) of section 4 and subsection (m)(2) of section
5; and
(3) the form, manner, and procedures applicable to the opt-
in by State Attorneys General under subsection (i) of section 4
and subsection (k) of section 5, including the secure
transmission to opted-in State Attorneys General of the reports
and referrals covered by such opt-ins.
(f) Updates to Coverage Thresholds.--
(1) Authority.--The Under Secretary may by regulation
increase--
(A) the threshold quantity of computing power
specified in subsection (l) of section 2; or
(B) the threshold amounts of gross revenues and AI-
related development expenditures specified in
subsections (o) and (v) of section 2.
(2) Criteria.--The Under Secretary shall set each threshold
at the level the Under Secretary determines is best calculated
to ensure that the terms defined in subsections (k), (l), (o),
and (v) of section 2 encompass the artificial intelligence
models and developers whose activities present catastrophic
risk, and do not encompass those whose activities do not,
taking into account advances in algorithmic and hardware
efficiency, changes in the cost of developing and training
foundation models, inflation, and the anticipated effect of the
modification on the entities subject to sections 5 and 6.
(3) Periodic review.--Not less frequently than once every 2
years, the Under Secretary shall review the thresholds
described in paragraph (1), determine whether an increase is
warranted, and publish the determination and its basis on a
website of the Department of Commerce.
(4) Prospective application.--A regulation prescribed under
this subsection shall take effect not earlier than 180 days
after publication in final form and shall apply only with
respect to obligations arising on or after its effective date.
SEC. 4. TRANSPARENCY AND REPORTING.
(a) Frontier AI Framework.--Not later than one year after the date
of enactment of this Act, or 90 days after a developer first qualifies
as a large frontier developer, whichever is later, a large frontier
developer shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and
conspicuously publish on a publicly available website of such developer
a frontier AI framework that satisfies the following requirements:
(1) Applies to each frontier model of such developer.
(2) Includes information relating to how such developer
carries out the following:
(A) Incorporating into such framework widely-
accepted national, international, and industry
approaches, best practices, frameworks, and methods for
risk mitigation.
(B) Identifying risk thresholds utilized by such
developer to assess whether each such model has a
capability that could pose a catastrophic risk.
(C) Assessing whether, based upon such thresholds,
each model has a capability that could pose a
catastrophic risk.
(D) Reviewing the results of such assessment and
such mitigation to determine--
(i) whether to deploy such model; and
(ii) whether to internally utilize such
model.
(E) Utilizing a third party to assess the risk that
such risk thresholds will be exceeded and the
effectiveness of such mitigation.
(F) Reviewing and updating such framework,
including the criteria in such framework that prompt
such updating and the process through which such
developer determines whether such model includes a
substantial modification, such that a disclosure is
required pursuant to subsection (d).
(G) Cybersecurity to secure nonpublic model weights
from unauthorized modification or transfer.
(H) Identifying and responding to a critical safety
incident related to such developer.
(I) Implementing internal governance practices to
ensure implementation of such framework.
(b) Updates.--
(1) In general.--Not less frequently than annually after a
large frontier developer publishes a frontier AI framework
pursuant to subsection (a), such developer shall carry out the
following:
(A) Review and, if such developer determines
appropriate, update such framework.
(B) If such framework is so updated, publish on a
publicly available website of such developer such
framework, as so updated.
(2) Material modification.--If a large frontier developer
makes a material modification to the frontier AI framework of
such developer published pursuant to subsection (a), not later
than 30 days after the date of such modification, such
developer shall publish on a publicly available website a
justification for such modification.
(c) Compliance Audit.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, or 90 days after a developer first qualifies as
a large frontier developer, whichever is later, and annually
thereafter, a large frontier developer shall retain a third party to
perform an independent audit of compliance with the frontier AI
framework of such developer published pursuant to subsection (a). The
third party shall conduct the audit consistent with generally accepted
auditing approaches, best practices, frameworks, and methods and shall
possess demonstrated competence to perform the audit, including
experience employing or contracting with individuals who possess
technical expertise in the safety of frontier models. A large frontier
developer shall not retain a third party if either the developer or the
third party has a financial interest in the other. A large frontier
developer may compensate a third party for its services but shall not
condition any payment, or the amount of any payment, on the results of
the third party's audit.
(1) Access.--The third party shall be granted timely access
to all materials, records, personnel, systems, and all other
information reasonably necessary to comply with its obligations
under this subsection, including all unredacted versions of
materials published pursuant to this Act. To protect the
developer's trade secrets and confidential business
information, cybersecurity, national security of the United
States, or public safety, a large frontier developer may impose
security protocols on the third party, including restrictions
on note-taking, copying, retaining, or removing materials,
requirements for on-premises review, and confidentiality
requirements.
(2) Report contents.--The third party shall produce a
report that includes all of the following:
(A) A description of whether the large frontier
developer has substantially complied with the frontier
AI framework of such developer.
(B) If applicable, a description of material
deviations from such framework, an explanation of any
deviation and its rationale, and any recommendations
for how the developer can improve its policies and
processes for ensuring compliance with such framework.
(C) A detailed assessment of the large frontier
developer's internal controls, including its
designation and empowerment of senior personnel
responsible for implementation of such framework by the
developer, its employees, and its contractors.
(D) A list of the personnel involved in the audit.
(E) The third party's procedures for managing
conflicts of interest and any conflicts of interest of
personnel involved in the audit.
(F) The methodology of the audit and the nature of
the information reviewed to conduct the audit.
(G) The signature of the lead auditor certifying
the results of the audit.
(3) Retention.--A large frontier developer shall retain an
unredacted copy of the report required under paragraph (2) for
as long as a frontier model of such developer is deployed, plus
5 years.
(4) Publication and transmittal.--Not later than 30 days
after receiving the audit report, a large frontier developer
shall--
(A) conspicuously publish on a publicly available
website of such developer a high-level summary of the
audit findings and a copy of the report with
appropriate redactions; and
(B) transmit a copy of the redacted report to the
Under Secretary, the Attorney General, and opted-in
State Attorneys General.
(5) Access by under secretary and attorney general.--A
large frontier developer shall grant the Under Secretary and
the Attorney General access to the third party's report,
redacted consistent with subsection (f) of section 4, upon
request.
(d) Transparency Report.--
(1) In general.--Before, or concurrently with, deploying a
frontier model that is new or includes a substantial
modification, the frontier developer of such model shall
publish on a publicly available website of such developer a
report on such model that includes information relating to the
following:
(A) A mechanism through which an individual may
communicate with such developer.
(B) The release date of such model or substantial
modification.
(C) Each language supported by such model, if any.
(D) Each output modality of such model.
(E) The intended utilization of such model.
(F) Generally applicable restrictions or
conditions, if any, with respect to such model.
(G) Any substantial modification to such model.
(H) Each assessment of catastrophic risk with
respect to such model or substantial modification,
conducted pursuant to the frontier AI framework at
issue.
(I) The results of each such assessment.
(J) The extent to which a third party was utilized
in the assessment of such model.
(K) Any other step taken pursuant to such framework
with respect to such model.
(2) Machine-readable format.--The summaries described in
this subsection shall be provided in a machine-readable format
to facilitate verification of model claims.
(3) Confidential deployment.--A frontier developer may
defer publication of the report required under this subsection
with respect to a deployment made subject to confidentiality
obligations for reasons of security or national security, until
such model is first deployed other than subject to such
obligations, if such developer transmits such report to the
Under Secretary before or concurrently with the confidential
deployment.
(e) False or Misleading Statements.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
frontier developer may not in a report under subsection (d)
knowingly make an inaccurate statement about, or convey a false
impression regarding, any subject on which subsection (d)
requires such report to include information.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to a statement
a frontier developer made in good faith and that was reasonable
under the circumstances.
(f) Redactions.--
(1) In general.--Before publishing a report or other
information pursuant to this section, a frontier developer may
make a redaction in such publication to carry out any of the
following:
(A) Protect a trade secret, the risk-prevention
mechanisms, or the cybersecurity, of such developer.
(B) Protect public safety or the national security
of the United States.
(C) Comply with Federal or State law.
(2) Justification.--If a frontier developer makes a
redaction pursuant to paragraph (1), such developer shall carry
out the following:
(A) Include in the publication in which such
redaction is made information relating to the character
of such redaction and a justification for such
redaction.
(B) Retain for not less than five years from the
date of such publication the information so redacted.
(C) Transmit to the Under Secretary an unredacted
copy of the publication in which such redaction is
made.
(g) Reporting Mechanisms.--
(1) Critical safety incidents.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary
shall establish a mechanism for a frontier developer or member
of the public to confidentially carry out the following:
(A) Submit to the Under Secretary a report on a
critical safety incident that includes the following:
(i) A specification of the date of such
incident.
(ii) Information relating to such incident,
including--
(I) the reason why such incident is
a critical safety incident; and
(II) whether such incident is
associated with the internal
utilization of a frontier model.
(iii) Any additional information required
by the Under Secretary by regulation.
(B) Amend such report, as necessary.
(2) Catastrophic risk.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary
shall establish a mechanism for a large frontier
developer to confidentially submit to the Under
Secretary a report on catastrophic risk arising from a
frontier model of such developer, including internal
use and internally deployed models.
(B) Periodic transmittal.--Not less frequently than
every 3 months, or pursuant to another reasonable
schedule specified by a large frontier developer in
writing and agreed to by the Under Secretary, such
developer shall transmit to the Under Secretary,
through the mechanism established under subparagraph
(g)(2)(A), a summary of an assessment of catastrophic
risks arising from internal use of its frontier models.
(3) Protection of reports.--The Under Secretary shall take
all necessary precautions to limit access to any reports
submitted under this subsection to only personnel with a
specific need to know the information and to protect the
reports from unauthorized access.
(4) Review.--The Under Secretary shall review each report
submitted under this subsection by a frontier developer and may
review any report submitted under this subsection by a member
of the public.
(h) Discovery of a Critical Safety Incident.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (g) and except as
provided in paragraph (2), not later than 72 hours after a
frontier developer learns facts sufficient to establish a
reasonable belief that a critical safety incident has occurred
with respect to a frontier model of such developer, such
developer shall submit through the mechanism established under
subsection (g)(1) a report on such incident.
(2) Imminent risk.--Not later than 24 hours after a
frontier developer discovers a critical safety incident that
poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury,
such developer shall report such incident to a law enforcement
agency with jurisdiction over such incident.
(i) State Attorneys General Opt-In.--Pursuant to the regulations
promulgated by the Under Secretary under section 3, State Attorneys
General may opt in to receive reports submitted to the Under Secretary
under subsections (g) and (h).
(j) Civil Penalty.--
(1) In general.--A frontier developer that violates this
section shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than
$1,000,000 per violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
day during which a violation continues constitutes a separate
violation.
(2) Action by attorney general.--The Attorney General may
bring an action to collect a civil penalty under paragraph (1)
and for an injunction ensuring compliance with the provisions
of this section.
(3) Action by state attorney general.--
(A) A State Attorney General who has opted in under
subsection (i) may bring an action to collect a civil
penalty under paragraph (1) and for an injunction
ensuring compliance with the provisions of this
section.
(B) Before filing an action under subparagraph (A),
the State Attorney General shall provide to the
Attorney General and the Under Secretary a written
notice of that action and a copy of the complaint for
that action. This notice requirement shall not apply if
the State Attorney General determines that it is not
feasible to provide notice before the filing of the
action, in which case the State Attorney General shall
provide a written notice of the action and a copy of
the complaint for the action at the same time the State
Attorney General files the action.
(C) Upon receiving notice under subparagraph (B),
the Attorney General shall have the right to intervene
in the action that is the subject of the notice, in
which case the Attorney General shall have the right to
be heard with respect to any matter that arises in that
action and to file a petition for appeal.
(D) In any case in which an action is instituted by
the Attorney General under subparagraph (A), no State
Attorney General may, during the pendency of that
action, institute an action under this subsection
against any defendant named in the complaint in that
action for any violation asserted in the Attorney
General's action.
(E) If, after a State Attorney General institutes
an action under this subsection, the Attorney General
institutes an action with respect to violations at
issue in the State Attorney General's action, the State
Attorney General's action shall be stayed as to the
violations at issue in the Attorney General's action
during the pendency of the Attorney General's action.
If the Attorney General's action is dismissed with
respect to any of the violations at issue in the State
Attorney General's action without a binding resolution
on the merits, the stay of the State Attorney General's
action shall be lifted as to those violations.
(k) Registration and Disclosure.--
(1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, or 90 days after a developer
first qualifies as a large frontier developer, whichever is
later, a large frontier developer may not develop, deploy, or
operate a frontier model, in whole or in part, without a
current disclosure statement filed with the Under Secretary and
payment of the fee required under subsection (k)(4).
(2) Contents.--A disclosure statement filed under
subsection (k)(1) shall be in the form and manner prescribed by
the Under Secretary and shall identify--
(A) the identity of the large frontier developer
and all names under which it conducts business;
(B) the address of the large frontier developer's
principal place of business and each office it
maintains in the United States;
(C) in the case of a large frontier developer that
is privately or closely held, or whose ultimate parent
is privately or closely held, all persons or entities
that beneficially own a 5 percent or greater interest
in such developer at the time of filing, and all
persons that formerly beneficially owned a 5 percent or
greater interest in such developer or a predecessor of
such developer during the preceding 5 years, and, in
the case of a large frontier developer that is publicly
traded, or whose ultimate parent is publicly traded,
all persons or entities that beneficially own a 50
percent or greater interest in such developer at the
time of filing; and
(D) the name and contact information of a primary,
secondary, and tertiary point of contact, the primary
of whom is responsible for receiving inquiries under
this Act.
(3) Renewal.--A large frontier developer shall renew its
disclosure statement annually, or not later than the date of
any transfer of ownership of a frontier model or material
change to the information reported under paragraph (k)(2),
whichever occurs earlier.
(4) Fees.--The Under Secretary shall charge and collect
fees from large frontier developers sufficient to offset the
expenses of administering this subsection.
(5) Publication.--The Under Secretary shall maintain and
publish a list of large frontier developers that have filed a
disclosure statement under this subsection, excluding the
contact information described in paragraph (k)(2).
(6) Civil penalty.--A large frontier developer that
develops, deploys, or operates a frontier model without a
current disclosure statement on file under this subsection,
that submits false information in such a statement, or that
fails to timely pay a fee required under paragraph (k)(4),
shall be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000 for each day of
noncompliance, which the Attorney General or a State Attorney
General who has opted in under subsection (i) may bring an
action to collect.
(l) Under Secretary Reports.--Not later than January 1, 2028, and
annually thereafter, the Under Secretary shall submit to Congress and
the President a report that includes, for the annual period covered by
such report, anonymized and aggregated information about the critical
safety incidents, if any, that have been reviewed by the Under
Secretary pursuant to subsection (g)(4), excluding any information that
would compromise a trade secret, risk-prevention mechanisms, or the
cybersecurity of a frontier developer, public safety, or the national
security of the United States.
SEC. 5. INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION.
(a) Licensing and Oversight of IVOs.--The Under Secretary shall
have the power and duty to oversee the licensing of independent
verification organizations, in accordance with the regulations
prescribed under subsection (c) of section 3.
(b) Assessment Requirement.--Not later than one year after the date
on which the Under Secretary first licenses an IVO with capacity to
accept an engagement under this section, or 90 days after a developer
first qualifies as a very large frontier developer, whichever is later,
a very large frontier developer shall retain an independent
verification organization that has been licensed pursuant to the
regulations prescribed under subsection (c) of section 3 to perform
ongoing assessment of the adequacy of the very large frontier
developer's frontier AI framework, governance policies and practices,
risk-monitoring, and mitigation of detected risks for achieving
acceptable levels of catastrophic risk mitigation. All assessment,
monitoring, reporting, and corrective action obligations under this
section shall apply to catastrophic risks arising from a very large
frontier developer's internal use of frontier models, in addition to
catastrophic risks arising from the release of such frontier models for
use by third parties.
(c) Licensing.--Each person or entity seeking to act as an IVO
shall obtain a license from the Under Secretary.
(d) Subcontracting.--
(1) In general.--An IVO may subcontract one or more
portions of an assessment to an organization with specialized
expertise, provided that the retaining IVO remains fully
responsible for the assessment, any resulting assessment
report, and any other regulatory obligations of the IVO under
this Act.
(2) Pass-through of obligations.--A subcontractor
performing any portion of an assessment shall stand in the
place of the retaining IVO and shall be subject to, and comply
with, every obligation under this section and the regulations
prescribed under subsection (c) of section 3 that applies to
the IVO with respect to the work the subcontractor performs,
including the personnel technical-qualification, conflict-of-
interest, and confidentiality requirements.
(3) Responsibility of retaining ivo.--Notwithstanding any
subcontracting under this subsection, the retaining IVO shall
remain the responsible party for the assessment and the
resulting assessment report, including the certifications
required under subsection (f).
(e) Access.--
(1) In general.--A very large frontier developer shall
grant an IVO timely access upon request to unredacted
materials, records, personnel, systems, and all other
information reasonably necessary for conducting the assessments
and ongoing monitoring required by this section.
(2) Security protocols.--A very large frontier developer
may impose reasonable security protocols and confidentiality
requirements upon IVOs that are narrowly tailored to protect
trade secrets and confidential business information.
(3) Limitations described.--Any material limitation on
scope, access, or information available to the IVO shall be
described in the assessment report.
(f) Assessment Reports.--
(1) Frequency.--A licensed IVO retained under subsection
(b) shall determine, in its professional judgment and
consistent with any regulations issued under subsection (c) of
section 3, the frequency with which it prepares and submits
assessment reports under this subsection, based on the nature,
severity, and evolution of the catastrophic risks presented by
the very large frontier developer's development, deployment,
and internal use of frontier models, provided that the IVO
shall prepare and submit an assessment report not less
frequently than once every 6 months.
(2) Contents.--Each assessment report shall be submitted
simultaneously to the Under Secretary and the very large
frontier developer and shall include all of the following:
(A) A description of the scope of the assessment,
the time period covered, the materials reviewed, and
the methods used.
(B) A description of any limitations on the IVO's
ability to thoroughly and adequately assess the
adequacy of the very large frontier developer's
frontier AI framework.
(C) A detailed assessment of the adequacy of the
very large frontier developer's frontier AI framework,
governance policies and practices, risk-monitoring, and
mitigation of detected risks to ensure acceptable
levels of catastrophic risk mitigation.
(D) Any identified failure, deficiency, or material
weakness in achieving acceptable levels of catastrophic
risk mitigation.
(E) Any corrective actions recommended to the very
large frontier developer's frontier AI framework,
governance policies and practices, risk-monitoring, and
mitigation of detected risks, necessary to achieve
acceptable levels of catastrophic risk mitigation.
(F) The signature of the IVO's lead assessment
partner or equivalent responsible official certifying
that--
(i) the report is accurate and does not
omit any material information;
(ii) the IVO was qualified to conduct the
assessment;
(iii) the IVO is free from conflicts of
interest, as defined by regulations issued
under this Act; and
(iv) the assessment complied with
regulations adopted pursuant to subsection (c)
of section 3.
(G) Any other materials required by rules issued
pursuant to subsection (c) of section 3.
(g) Post-Assessment Report.--
(1) Not later than fourteen days after the very large
frontier developer's receipt of an assessment report under
subsection (f), the very large frontier developer shall submit
to the IVO a written description of the actions that it has
taken or intends to take to implement the corrective actions
recommended in such assessment report.
(2) Not later than seven days after receiving the
description under paragraph (1), the IVO shall submit to the
very large frontier developer an opinion, signed by the IVO's
lead assessment partner or equivalent responsible official,
stating the IVO's professional judgment regarding whether the
actions the very large frontier developer has taken or intends
to take in response to the IVO's recommendations are adequate
to ensure acceptable levels of catastrophic risk mitigation.
(3) Not later than 30 days after the very large frontier
developer's receipt of an assessment report under subsection
(f), a very large frontier developer shall submit to the Under
Secretary a post-assessment report, which shall include--
(A) a copy of the frontier AI framework applicable
to the assessed period;
(B) the name, business address, electronic mail
address, and telephone number of the IVO and the lead
assessment partner or equivalent responsible official;
(C) a summary of the key findings of the
assessment, including--
(i) the IVO's determination regarding the
developer's conformance with its frontier AI
framework;
(ii) any significant concerns identified by
the IVO regarding the adequacy of the frontier
AI framework and the developer's conformance to
its frontier AI framework, governance policies
and practices, risk-monitoring, and mitigation
of detected risks, to ensure acceptable levels
of catastrophic risk mitigation; and
(iii) the opinion rendered by the IVO under
paragraph (2); and
(D) such additional information as the Under
Secretary may require by regulation.
(h) Ad Hoc Assessments.--At any time, and without regard to any
frequency determined under paragraph (f)(1), the Under Secretary may
require a very large frontier developer to obtain an ad hoc assessment,
or a licensed IVO to prepare and submit an assessment report, as the
Under Secretary determines necessary to--
(1) reproduce or validate assessment findings;
(2) evaluate implementation of corrective actions
recommended under paragraph (f)(2)(E); or
(3) monitor significant changes in risk, including after a
critical safety incident or a substantial modification to a
very large frontier developer's model, system, or operations.
(i) Out-of-Cycle Assessment and Reporting.--In addition to the
assessment reports required under subsection (f), a licensed IVO shall
prepare and submit simultaneously to the Under Secretary and the very
large frontier developer supplemental reports as specified in this
subsection.
(1) Triggering determinations.--An IVO shall submit a
supplemental report not later than seven days after the IVO
determines, in light of new information, emergent model
capabilities, or material changes to a frontier model, that--
(A) a prior assessment report's finding that a very
large frontier developer is achieving acceptable levels
of catastrophic risk mitigation is no longer valid;
(B) corrective actions recommended in a prior
assessment report would no longer be adequate to
achieve acceptable levels of catastrophic risk
mitigation; or
(C) any representation made by a very large
frontier developer in a prior post-assessment report
submitted under subsection (g) is no longer accurate or
is materially misleading.
(2) Contents.--A report submitted under this subsection
shall include--
(A) a detailed description of the information and
conclusions triggering reporting under paragraph (1);
(B) an assessment of whether the issue triggering
reporting under paragraph (1) threatens an imminent
catastrophic risk; and
(C) any additional corrective actions or
modifications to the developer's frontier AI framework,
governance policies and practices, risk-monitoring, and
mitigation of detected risks necessary to restore
acceptable levels of catastrophic risk mitigation.
(3) Developer response.--Not later than seven days after
the very large frontier developer's receipt of a supplemental
report under this subsection, the very large frontier developer
shall submit to the IVO a written description of the actions
that it has taken or intends to take to implement the
corrective actions recommended in such supplemental report.
(4) Ivo opinion.--Not later than seven days after receiving
the description under paragraph (3), the IVO shall submit to
the very large frontier developer an opinion, signed by the
IVO's lead assessment partner or equivalent responsible
official, stating the IVO's professional judgment regarding
whether the actions the very large frontier developer has taken
or intends to take in response to the IVO's recommendations are
adequate to ensure acceptable levels of catastrophic risk
mitigation.
(5) Submission to under secretary.--Not later than twenty-
one days after the very large frontier developer's receipt of a
supplemental report under this subsection, the very large
frontier developer shall submit to the Under Secretary--
(A) a response identifying any actions, including
revisions to the frontier AI framework, that the
developer has taken or intends to take in response; and
(B) an opinion rendered by the IVO under paragraph
(4).
(j) Public Disclosure of Assessment Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after receiving an
assessment report under subsection (f), a very large frontier
developer shall--
(A) conspicuously publish on a publicly available
website of such developer a high-level summary of the
findings of such report and a copy of such report,
redacted consistent with subsection (m); and
(B) transmit a copy of the report, as so redacted,
to the Under Secretary, the Attorney General, and
opted-in State Attorneys General.
(2) Redaction disputes.--If the Under Secretary, the
Attorney General, or a State Attorney General who has opted in
under subsection (k) determines that a redaction made under
this subsection is overbroad, such official may request that
the Under Secretary review the redaction. Not later than 30
days after receiving such a request, the Under Secretary shall
review the redaction, which review may include an in camera
review of the unredacted assessment report, and shall determine
whether the redaction is consistent with subsection (m).
(k) State Attorneys General Opt-In.--Pursuant to the regulations
promulgated by the Under Secretary under section 3, State Attorneys
General may opt in to receive reports pursuant to subsections (f) and
(i) and referrals pursuant to subsection (p).
(l) Recordkeeping.--Each very large frontier developer and IVO
shall retain an unredacted copy of each assessment report and materials
supporting the report for not less than 5 years after the date of
completion of the assessment.
(m) Public Version Redactions.--
(1) Permitted redactions.--The public version of an
assessment report may redact information, or omit information
included in a confidential annex, only to the extent reasonably
necessary to protect--
(A) trade secrets;
(B) cybersecurity;
(C) a frontier developer's risk-prevention
mechanisms;
(D) public safety;
(E) national security; or
(F) personally identifiable information or other
information the disclosure of which would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
(2) Description of redactions.--The public version of the
assessment report shall include a description of the character
and justification of any redactions or omitted material.
(n) Access to Unredacted Materials.--The developer and IVO shall
provide the Under Secretary and the Attorney General access to the
unredacted assessment report and supporting materials upon request.
(o) Prohibition on Misrepresentation.--An IVO shall not knowingly
make a material misrepresentation or omission in any report or opinion
prepared pursuant to this section.
(p) Enforcement.--
(1) Referral to attorney general and state attorneys
general.--
(A) In general.--An IVO may refer any violation of
this section to the Attorney General, and all State
Attorneys General opting in under subsection (k), for
enforcement action under this subsection.
(B) IVO referrals.--If, in the course of performing
its responsibilities under this section, an IVO
determines that a very large frontier developer's
frontier model fails to achieve acceptable levels of
catastrophic risk mitigation in a manner that poses an
imminent catastrophic risk, the IVO shall refer the
matter to the Secretary, for consideration of an
emergency order under section 8, as soon as
practicable, and in any event not more than 72 hours,
after its determination.
(2) Developer violations.--
(A) In general.--A very large frontier developer
that violates subsection (b), (e), (g), (h), (i), (j),
or (k), or that makes a material misrepresentation or
omission in a post-assessment report submitted under
subsection (g), shall be subject to a civil penalty of
not more than $1,000,000 per violation. For purposes of
this subparagraph, each day during which a violation
continues constitutes a separate violation.
(B) Action by attorney general.--The Attorney
General may bring an action to collect a civil penalty
under subparagraph (A) and for an injunction ensuring
compliance with the provisions of this section.
(C) Action by state attorney general.--
(i) A State Attorney General who has opted
in under subsection (k) may bring an action to
collect a civil penalty under subparagraph (A)
and for an injunction ensuring compliance with
the provisions of this section.
(ii) Before filing an action under clause
(i), the State Attorney General shall provide
to the Attorney General a written notice of
that action and a copy of the complaint for
that action. This notice requirement shall not
apply if the State Attorney General determines
that it is not feasible to provide notice
before the filing of the action, in which case
the State Attorney General shall provide a
written notice of the action and a copy of the
complaint for the action at the same time the
State Attorney General files the action.
(iii) Upon receiving notice under clause
(ii), the Attorney General shall have the right
to intervene in the action that is the subject
of the notice, in which case the Attorney
General shall have the right to be heard with
respect to any matter that arises in that
action and to file a petition for appeal.
(iv) In any case in which an action is
instituted by the Attorney General under
subparagraph (B), no State Attorney General
may, during the pendency of that action,
institute an action under this subparagraph
against any defendant named in the complaint in
that action for any violation asserted in the
Attorney General's action.
(v) If, after a State Attorney General
institutes an action under this subparagraph,
the Attorney General institutes an action under
subparagraph (B) with respect to violations at
issue in the State Attorney General's action,
the State Attorney General's action shall be
stayed as to the violations at issue in the
Attorney General's action during the pendency
of the Attorney General's action. If the
Attorney General's action is dismissed with
respect to any of the violations at issue in
the State Attorney General's action without a
binding resolution on the merits, the stay of
the State Attorney General's action shall be
lifted as to those violations.
(q) Immunity From Suit.--
(1) In general.--An IVO shall be immune from suit and
liability under Federal and State law with respect to all
claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or
resulting from the materialization of a catastrophic risk of a
frontier model assessed by the IVO if the IVO was licensed by
the Under Secretary under this section at the time of the
assessment.
(2) Exception.--The sole exception to immunity from suit
and liability of a licensed IVO under this subsection shall be
an exclusive Federal cause of action for death or serious
physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct, as
defined by section 247d-6d(c)(1) of title 42, United States
Code.
(A) An action under this paragraph may be brought
for wrongful death or serious physical injury by any
person who suffers such injury or by any representative
of such a person.
(B) In an action under this paragraph, the
plaintiff shall have the burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence willful misconduct by the IVO and
that such willful misconduct caused death or serious
physical injury. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an IVO shall not have engaged in willful
misconduct as a matter of law where such IVO acted
consistent with its obligations under this section and
all applicable regulations, guidelines, or
recommendations by the Under Secretary.
(C) An action under this paragraph shall be filed
and maintained only in an appropriate district court of
the United States. The substantive law for decision in
such an action shall be derived from the law, including
choice-of-law principles, of the State in which the
alleged willful misconduct occurred, unless such law is
inconsistent with or preempted by Federal law,
including provisions of this section.
(D) In an action under this paragraph, no discovery
shall be allowed before the IVO has had a reasonable
opportunity to file a motion to dismiss, or, in the
event such a motion is filed, before the court has
ruled on such motion.
(r) FOIA Exemption.--Assessment reports, summaries, and supporting
materials disclosed to the Under Secretary pursuant to this section are
exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States
Code.
SEC. 6. CUMULATIVE OBLIGATIONS.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, a large frontier developer
shall comply with each requirement of this Act applicable to a frontier
developer, and a very large frontier developer shall comply with each
requirement of this Act applicable to a frontier developer and to a
large frontier developer.
SEC. 7. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT ON THE MARKET FOR
INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Annual Report.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Comptroller General
of the United States shall submit to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the state of the
market for independent verification organizations licensed under
section 5.
(b) Contents.--Each report submitted under subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An assessment of the state of the market for
independent verification organizations, including the number of
licensed IVOs, their capacity to meet demand for assessments,
and any barriers to entry or other factors affecting the
development of a competitive and robust IVO market.
(2) An evaluation of the degree to which independent
verification organizations are independent from the artificial
intelligence industry, including any factors that threaten such
independence.
(3) Recommendations for legislative or administrative
policy changes that would help ensure the independence of
independent verification organizations from the artificial
intelligence industry.
SEC. 8. EMERGENCY ORDERS ADDRESSING IMMINENT CATASTROPHIC RISK.
(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may issue an emergency order
suspending or restricting a frontier developer's development,
deployment, or internal use of a frontier model upon finding
that such development, deployment, or internal use of that
model presents an imminent catastrophic risk.
(2) Emergency order.--In this section, the term ``emergency
order'' means a provisional order issued under subsection (e)
or a final order issued under subsection (f).
(3) Scope.--A suspension or restriction under this
section--
(A) may apply to the whole or any part of the
development, deployment, or internal use of the
frontier model, including development, deployment, or
internal use by or with respect to particular persons
or categories of persons, for particular purposes or
uses, or through particular means or channels of
access; and
(B) may be defined by reference to the presence or
absence of specified facts or circumstances of such
development, deployment, or internal use, including
specified safeguards or security measures.
(b) Finding.--
(1) In writing.--A finding under subsection (a) shall be
set forth in a written statement that includes the factual
basis for the finding and the principal reasons for the
Secretary's determination.
(2) Technical assessment.--If the Secretary has published
methods bearing on the finding, the Secretary shall, before the
Secretary makes the finding, prepare a technical assessment
applying such methods to the frontier developer's development,
deployment, or internal use, and the Secretary shall include
such assessment with the written statement under paragraph (1).
(3) Consultation.--In making a finding under subsection
(a), a preliminary determination under subsection (e), or a
determination with respect to rescission under subsection (g),
the Secretary shall consult with the Under Secretary.
(4) Final authority.--The authority to make a finding under
subsection (a) and to issue, renew, or rescind an emergency
order under this section is vested in the Secretary, and no
consultation under paragraph (3) shall be construed to
condition the exercise of such authority on the concurrence of
the Under Secretary.
(c) Order.--
(1) Contents.--An emergency order shall--
(A) identify the frontier developer subject to the
order and the frontier model or models to which the
order applies;
(B) describe, with reasonable particularity, the
acts, practices, or circumstances in the development,
deployment, or internal use of such model or models
from which the imminent catastrophic risk arises;
(C) state, in the case of a provisional order, the
preliminary basis for the order, and in the case of a
final order, include the written statement required by
subsection (b)(1);
(D) describe the suspensions or restrictions
imposed;
(E) include a timeline for compliance with the
order;
(F) state the criteria for rescission of the order
under subsection (g); and
(G) if corrective action by the frontier developer
could cause such development, deployment, or internal
use to no longer present an imminent catastrophic risk,
describe such corrective action.
(2) Rule of construction.--The identification or
availability of corrective action described in paragraph (1)(G)
shall not be a precondition to the issuance of an emergency
order.
(d) Effectiveness and Application.--
(1) Effectiveness.--An emergency order is effective upon
service on the frontier developer and, unless set aside,
limited, or suspended under subsection (j) or subsection (k),
remains effective and enforceable until it lapses under
subsection (e)(3) or subsection (f)(2) or is rescinded under
subsection (g).
(2) Persons bound.--An emergency order binds the frontier
developer subject to the order, each affiliate of such
developer, and the successors and assigns of such developer and
its affiliates, and any other person who, with actual notice of
the order, acts in concert or participation with such
developer, affiliate, successor, or assignee in the
development, deployment, or internal use suspended or
restricted by the order.
(3) Modified and derived models.--
(A) Modified models.--Unless the order provides
otherwise, an emergency order applies to any model
produced by modification of the weights or parameters
of a frontier model identified in the order under
subsection (c)(1), including by fine-tuning,
reinforcement learning, quantization, pruning, or
merging with another model.
(B) Derived models.--Unless the order provides
otherwise, an emergency order also applies to any model
developed after service of the order that is trained,
in substantial part, on the outputs, weights, or
internal representations of a frontier model identified
in the order.
(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of
the Secretary to identify a model in an emergency order
under subsection (c)(1), or by amendment to such order.
(e) Provisional Orders.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), the
Secretary may issue a provisional order before making the
finding required by subsection (a), upon a preliminary
determination that the frontier developer's development,
deployment, or internal use of a frontier model presents an
imminent catastrophic risk. A provisional order may be issued
whether or not a technical assessment under subsection (b)(2)
has been prepared.
(2) Notice and opportunity to cure.--Before issuing a
provisional order, the Secretary shall provide the frontier
developer notice and an opportunity to cure and to be heard,
unless the Secretary determines that the imminence of the
catastrophic risk forecloses such notice and opportunity, in
which case the Secretary shall set forth such determination,
and the basis therefor, in writing, and serve such
determination with the provisional order.
(3) Lapse.--
(A) In general.--A provisional order shall lapse
upon the earliest of--
(i) the date that is 45 days after the date
of service of the order on the frontier
developer;
(ii) if the frontier developer has timely
applied for an expedited hearing under
subsection (j)(1), the date that is 7 days
after the date on which the Secretary renders a
final determination on such application; or
(iii) the date on which a final order is
issued under subsection (f) suspending or
restricting the same or substantially similar
development, deployment, or internal use.
(B) Orders issued without notice.--If a provisional
order is issued without notice and an opportunity to
cure pursuant to a determination under paragraph (2),
the Secretary shall, promptly after service of the
order, provide the frontier developer an opportunity to
cure, and subparagraph (A) shall apply to the order.
(4) Successive provisional orders.--The Secretary may not
issue a provisional order to a frontier developer suspending or
restricting the same or substantially similar development,
deployment, or internal use as a prior provisional order,
except on the basis of facts and circumstances materially
different from those on which the prior provisional order
rested.
(f) Final Orders.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may issue a final order if--
(A) a provisional order suspending or restricting
the same or substantially similar development,
deployment, or internal use is in effect at the time
the Secretary issues the final order;
(B) the Secretary has made the finding required by
subsection (a), set forth in the written statement
required by subsection (b)(1); and
(C) either--
(i) the period to apply for an expedited
hearing under subsection (j)(1) has lapsed
without an application; or
(ii) the Secretary has rendered a final
determination on an application under
subsection (j)(1).
(2) Lapse.--A final order shall lapse upon the date that is
90 days after the date on which it is issued.
(3) Renewal.--The Secretary may renew a final order for one
or more successive periods of not more than 90 days each if,
before the order lapses, the Secretary makes a new finding
under subsection (a), in accordance with subsection (b), based
on the facts as they exist at the time of renewal. A renewal
shall be treated as a final order for purposes of subsection
(k).
(g) Rescission.--
(1) Required rescission.--The Secretary shall rescind an
emergency order, in whole or in part, if--
(A) the criteria for rescission stated in the order
under subsection (c)(1) are satisfied; or
(B) the development, deployment, or internal use
suspended or restricted by the order would not present
an imminent catastrophic risk if the order were
rescinded to that extent.
(2) Written determination.--A rescission under this
subsection, and any denial of an application under paragraph
(3), shall be set forth in a written determination stating the
basis therefor, which shall be served on the frontier
developer.
(3) Application.--A frontier developer subject to an
emergency order may apply to the Secretary for rescission of
the order in whole or in part. The Secretary shall grant or
deny the application not later than 14 days after its receipt.
(4) Successive applications.--Following the denial of an
application under paragraph (3), the Secretary may summarily
deny a subsequent application respecting the same order that
does not rest, in substantial part, on facts or circumstances
arising after, or not reasonably available at the time of, the
prior application.
(h) Publication.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall publish each final
order issued under subsection (f), each renewal of a final
order under subsection (f)(3), and each written determination
under subsection (g)(2) rescinding an order in whole or in
part, subject to paragraph (2).
(2) Redactions.--Before publishing an order, renewal, or
rescission under paragraph (1), the Secretary may make a
redaction in such publication to protect a trade secret, risk-
prevention mechanisms, or the cybersecurity, of the frontier
developer, to protect public safety or the national security of
the United States, or to comply with Federal or State law. If
the Secretary makes such a redaction, the Secretary shall
include in the publication information relating to the
character of, and a justification for, such redaction.
(i) Congressional Notification.--
(1) Notice of orders.--Not later than 3 days after issuing
an emergency order, or renewing a final order under subsection
(f)(3), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees--
(A) a copy of the order;
(B) in the case of a final order or renewal, the
written statement required by subsection (b)(1), and in
the case of a provisional order, a statement of the
preliminary basis for the order;
(C) any technical assessment prepared under
subsection (b)(2); and
(D) in the case of a provisional order issued
without notice and an opportunity to cure, the
Secretary's written determination under subsection
(e)(2).
(2) Notice of disposition.--Not later than 7 days after an
emergency order is rescinded, lapses, or is set aside, limited,
suspended, or stayed in whole or in part by the Secretary or a
court, the Secretary shall notify the appropriate congressional
committees of such disposition and its basis.
(3) Form.--Each submission under this subsection shall be
in unclassified form to the maximum extent practicable, but may
include a classified annex.
(4) Periodic report.--Not less frequently than
semiannually, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report on the exercise of authority
under this section, including each order issued, renewed,
rescinded, or lapsed during the period; the outcome of each
hearing under subsection (j) and each action or proceeding
under subsection (k), subsection (l)(3), and subsection (m);
and any changes to the methods published by the Secretary
bearing on findings under this section.
(5) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``appropriate
congressional committees'' means the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on the Judiciary of each House of Congress.
(j) Administrative Review.--
(1) Expedited hearing.--Not later than 10 days after the
date on which a provisional order is served on a frontier
developer, the frontier developer may apply for an expedited
hearing on such order. The Secretary shall hold such hearing
and render a final determination on such application not later
than 30 days after the application's receipt. The hearing may
be conducted by a hearing officer designated by the Secretary.
(2) Record access and burden.--In a hearing under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall make available to the frontier
developer any written determination under paragraph (e)(2), any
technical assessment under paragraph (b)(2), and all
information on which the Secretary relied in issuing the order,
and shall bear the burden of demonstrating that adequate
evidence supports the order.
(k) Judicial Review.--
(1) Review of provisional orders.--A provisional order
shall not be deemed final agency action for purposes of section
704 of title 5, United States Code. Except as provided in
paragraph (7), no court shall have jurisdiction to review,
enjoin, set aside, suspend, limit, or stay a provisional order
before a final order has been issued under subsection (f);
thereafter, the lawfulness of the provisional order may be
reviewed only in a proceeding under paragraph (2).
(2) Exclusive jurisdiction and expedition.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction
over any civil action seeking judicial review of, or any order
enjoining, setting aside, limiting, suspending, staying, or
otherwise affecting the effectiveness or enforcement of, an
emergency order under this section or relief under paragraph
(l)(3). The court shall expedite the action to the greatest
possible extent, and shall establish a schedule for the
proceeding not later than 10 days after the action is filed.
(3) No automatic stay.--The filing of a civil action
referenced in paragraph (2) shall not operate as a stay of the
emergency order unless the district court orders otherwise.
(4) Standard of review.--The district court may set aside,
limit, suspend, or stay a final order only if the court
determines that such order is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
(5) Enforcement proceedings.--The validity of a final order
may not be reexamined in an action under subsection (m).
(6) Appeal.--An appeal from a final judgment of the
district court in an action referenced in paragraph (2) may be
taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit not later than 30 days after the date of the
judgment. The court of appeals shall expedite the appeal to the
greatest possible extent. It shall be the duty of every court
of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite
the disposition of any action or appeal under this subsection.
(7) Constitutional claims.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to preclude the jurisdiction of a court of
the United States over a claim that this section, or the
structure or authority of the Secretary under this Act,
violates the Constitution of the United States.
(l) Exclusivity.--
(1) Exclusive means.--This section shall be the exclusive
means by which any department, agency, officer, or employee of
the United States, including the President, may take any action
that has the purpose or effect of suspending, restricting,
conditioning, or otherwise limiting a frontier developer's
development, deployment, or internal use of a frontier model,
and that is taken, in whole or in substantial part, on the
ground that such development, deployment, or internal use
presents an imminent catastrophic risk.
(2) Construction.--No other provision of law shall be
construed as authorizing an action described in paragraph (1),
unless such provision expressly refers to this section.
(3) Unauthorized actions.--An action described in paragraph
(1) that is not taken in accordance with this section shall be
unenforceable, and a frontier developer against which such an
action is directed may bring a civil action under paragraph
(k)(2) for declaratory or injunctive relief.
(m) Enforcement.--
(1) Civil penalty.--A person bound by an emergency order
under paragraph (d)(2) that violates the order shall be subject
to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000,000 per violation.
For purposes of this paragraph, each day during which a
violation continues constitutes a separate violation.
(2) Action by attorney general.--The Attorney General may
bring a civil action in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia to enforce an emergency order, to
collect a civil penalty under paragraph (1), or both. In such
an action, upon a showing that a person has violated, or is
about to violate, an emergency order, the court shall issue an
injunction, restraining order, or other order requiring
compliance, without the showing of irreparable harm or the
inadequacy of other remedies at law otherwise required for
equitable relief.
(3) Criminal penalty.--A person that willfully violates, or
willfully directs, induces, or procures a violation of, an
emergency order shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 per
violation, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
SEC. 9. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAWS.
(a) Covered Subject Area.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Covered Subject Area'' means any of the following:
(1) Frontier ai risk transparency.--The disclosure by a
developer, to any State, member of the public, or other person,
of information regarding--
(A) the policies, procedures, frameworks, or
practices used by the developer to identify, assess,
manage, or mitigate catastrophic risks associated with
the development, training, evaluation, or release of an
AI model;
(B) the results, methodologies, benchmarks, or
thresholds of testing, evaluation, or red-teaming of an
AI model with respect to catastrophic risks; or
(C) the characteristics, capabilities, training, or
deployment of an AI model, where the disclosure relates
to the assessment, monitoring, communication, or
mitigation of catastrophic risks.
(2) Frontier ai third-party auditing and independent
verification.--The assessment, audit, evaluation,
certification, attestation, or verification, by a person other
than its developer, of--
(A) activities involved in the development,
training, evaluation, or deployment of an AI model by
such developer that relate to the identification,
assessment, management, or mitigation of catastrophic
risks;
(B) the policies, procedures, frameworks, or
practices of such developer relating to the
identification, assessment, management, or mitigation
of catastrophic risks; or
(C) the compliance of such developer with any
requirement relating to the development, training,
evaluation, or release of an AI model, if such
requirement relates to the mitigation of catastrophic
risks, including any requirement that such developer
obtain certification, attestation, registration,
accreditation, or other approval as a condition of, or
in connection with, the development, training,
evaluation, or release of an AI model, or that such
developer provide access to an AI model, model weights,
training data, source code, evaluation results, or
other technical materials for purposes of any such
assessment, audit, evaluation, or verification.
(3) Frontier ai incident reporting.--The reporting by a
developer to any State, agency, regulator, or other
governmental entity of--
(A) safety or security incidents involving an AI
model, including unauthorized access to or exfiltration
of model weights, loss of control over a deployed
model, use of a model to cause or materially contribute
to catastrophic harm, or material failure of a safety
mitigation; or
(B) other events involving the development,
training, evaluation, or release of an AI model that
bear on the potential for the model to cause or
materially contribute to catastrophic harm.
(b) Preemption.--Except as provided in subsection (c), no State or
political subdivision of a State may adopt or enforce any law,
regulation, order, or other requirement that imposes new substantive
obligations on artificial intelligence developers with respect to any
Covered Subject Area.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect the authority of a State or political subdivision
of a State to--
(1) adopt or enforce generally applicable laws,
regulations, orders, or other requirements that do not target
artificial intelligence developers;
(2) regulate the use or deployment of AI systems by
deployers or users, including via consumer protection, civil
rights, contract, criminal, or privacy laws, provided that no
substantive obligations are imposed on developers with respect
to model development, training, evaluation, or release;
(3) adopt or enforce laws, regulations, orders, or other
requirements specifically relating to the protection of minors
from harms arising from the use of AI systems, including
requirements addressing sexually explicit content, content
promoting self-harm, content facilitating exploitation, age
verification, parental controls, or similar matters; and
(4) adopt or enforce laws, regulations, orders, or other
requirements governing the procurement or use of AI systems by
State governments.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``artificial
intelligence developer'' means--
(1) an entity that builds, designs, codes, produces,
trains, or owns an artificial intelligence model or models for
internal use or for use by a third party; and
(2) does not include an entity that is solely a deployer of
the artificial intelligence model.
<all>