Laws compared

Stated

• “providers of general-purpose AI models”

  Article 53(1), chapeau (same words as in Article 101(1), dataset quote aia-art101-gpai-fines)

• “shall be classified as a general-purpose AI model with systemic risk if it meets any of the following conditions”

  Article 51(1), chapeau

Note: The duties in Article 53 fall on providers of general-purpose AI models; Article 55(1) adds duties for providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk, the category defined in Article 51 (high-impact capabilities, presumed above a training-compute threshold, or a Commission decision). Article 54 adds an authorised-representative duty for providers established in third countries; Article 53(2) exempts certain open-source models from points (a) and (b), but not models with systemic risk. 'Provider' is defined in Article 3(3) (not quoted).

Stated

• “presumed to have high impact capabilities pursuant to paragraph 1, point (a), when the cumulative amount of computation used for its training measured in floating point operations is greater than”

  Article 51(2)

• “greater than 1025”

  Article 51(2), closing words

• “based on a decision of the Commission, ex officio or following a qualified alert from the scientific panel”

  Article 51(1), point (b)

Note: The figure is 10 to the power 25 floating point operations; the cached text renders the superscript as '1025'. The compute figure is a presumption of high-impact capabilities under Article 51(1)(a); a model can also be classified by Commission decision having regard to the Annex XIII criteria. Article 51(3) empowers the Commission to amend the thresholds by delegated act; Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (37), restates that delegation in Article 97 without changing Article 51. Articles 52(2) to 52(5) provide for rebuttal and reassessment.

Stated

• “perform model evaluation in accordance with standardised protocols and tools reflecting the state of the art, including conducting and documenting adversarial testing”

  Article 55(1), point (a)

Note: Applies to providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk. The provision does not tie the evaluation to a point before or after the model is placed on the market.

Stated

• “report, without undue delay, to the AI Office and, as appropriate, to national competent authorities, relevant information about serious incidents”

  Article 55(1), point (c)

Note: Applies to providers of models with systemic risk. The timing is 'without undue delay'; no number of days is set in the Regulation. 'Serious incident' is defined in Article 3(49) by reference to an AI system (not quoted).

Stated

• “draw up and keep up-to-date the technical documentation of the model”

  Article 53(1), point (a)

• “to providers of AI systems who intend to integrate the general-purpose AI model into their AI systems”

  Article 53(1), point (b)

• “a sufficiently detailed summary about the content used for training of the general-purpose AI model, according to a template provided by the AI Office”

  Article 53(1), point (d)

Note: The technical documentation (Annex XI, with added items for models with systemic risk) is kept for supply to the AI Office and national competent authorities on request; information for downstream providers (Annex XII) is made available to them; the training-content summary is made publicly available. Points (a) and (b) do not apply to qualifying open-source models without systemic risk (Article 53(2)). Article 52(1) separately requires notification to the Commission within two weeks once the Article 51(1)(a) condition is met. No labelling duty for model outputs is among the provisions compared (Article 50 concerns AI systems).

Stated

• “Done at Brussels, 13 June 2024.”

  Closing formula following Article 113

• “Done at Strasbourg, 8 July 2026.”

  Closing formula

Note: Signature dates of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and of the amending Regulation (EU) 2026/1744. Publication dates (12.7.2024; 24.7.2026) are from the Official Journal headers and are not adoption dates.

Stated

• “shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union”

  Article 113, first paragraph

• “This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.”

  Article 4, first paragraph

Note: Computed: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 was published on 12.7.2024, giving entry into force on 1 August 2024 (computed). Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 was published on 24.7.2026, giving 27 July 2026 (computed); among the provisions compared, it amends Article 56(6).

Stated

• “Chapter III Section 4, Chapter V, Chapter VII and Chapter XII and Article 78 shall apply from 2 August 2025, with the exception of Article 101”

  Article 113, third paragraph, point (b)

• “It shall apply from 2 August 2026.”

  Article 113, second paragraph

• “shall take the necessary steps in order to comply with the obligations laid down in this Regulation by 2 August 2027”

  Article 111(3)

Note: Chapter V duties apply from 2 August 2025. Article 101 (fines) is excepted from that date; read with the general date in the second paragraph, it applies from 2 August 2026. The text states no separate date for Article 101; this is a reading of the two quoted provisions. Under Article 111(3), providers of models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 have until 2 August 2027. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (40), amends Article 113 points (a) and (c) and adds point (d), but leaves point (b) unchanged.

Stated

• “The Commission may impose on providers of general-purpose AI models fines not exceeding 3 % of their annual total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year or EUR 15 000 000, whichever is higher”

  Article 101(1), first subparagraph

Note: The maximum is the higher of 3 % of annual total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year or EUR 15 000 000, where the Commission finds that the provider intentionally or negligently infringed the relevant provisions or failed to comply with requests, measures or access for evaluation (Article 101(1)(a) to (d)). Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 does not amend Article 101; its new SMC paragraph 6a applies to Article 99.

Stated

• “The Commission may impose on providers of general-purpose AI models fines”

  Article 101(1), first subparagraph (part)

• “The AI Office, after consulting the Board, may conduct evaluations of the general-purpose AI model concerned”

  Article 92(1), chapeau

• “The Commission has exclusive competence as regards general-purpose AI models under Article 88 of that Regulation.”

  Recital (31)

Note: Under Article 88(1) the Commission has exclusive powers to supervise and enforce Chapter V and entrusts these tasks to the AI Office; Articles 89 to 93 give the AI Office and Commission monitoring, information, evaluation and measure powers. The new Article 75(1) inserted by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 concerns AI systems, not models, and is not used here.

Stated

• “may rely on codes of practice within the meaning of Article 56 to demonstrate compliance”

  Article 55(2), first sentence

• “shall demonstrate alternative adequate means of compliance for assessment by the Commission”

  Article 55(2), third sentence

• “The Commission, taking utmost account of the opinion of the Board, shall assess whether the codes of practice cover the obligations provided for in Articles 53 and 55”

  Article 1, point (21), replacing Article 56(6) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

Note: 'May rely on' codes of practice, until a harmonised standard is published (Articles 53(4) and 55(2)); compliance with European harmonised standards grants a presumption of conformity to the extent they cover the obligations. Providers that do not adhere to an approved code or comply with a standard demonstrate alternative means. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 replaced Article 56(6): the Commission, rather than the AI Office and the Board, now assesses codes; its recital (41) states that these codes 'do not grant a presumption of conformity'. The Act does not require a developer's own safety framework.

Stated

• “this Safety and Security Chapter (“Chapter”) is only relevant for providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk and not AI systems”

  Recitals, (b) (PDF p. 3)

Note: The commitments are written as commitments of 'Signatories'; the Chapter is stated to be relevant only to providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk. The commitments are addressed to providers that sign the Code and choose to rely on it; the Code is not binding in itself (see the row’s standing). Terms defined in Article 3 of the AI Act apply (Glossary, opening paragraph).

Stated

• “Signatories commit to adopting a state-of-the-art Safety and Security Framework (“Framework”).”

  Commitment 1, first paragraph (PDF p. 6)

Note: Measure 1.1 lists the Framework's contents (trigger points, systemic risk acceptance criteria and tiers, responsibility allocation, update process); Measure 1.3 requires updates and a Framework assessment at least every 12 months. A commitment of Signatories.

Stated

• “Signatories will provide the AI Office with (unredacted) access to their Framework, and updates thereof, within five business days of either being confirmed.”

  Measure 1.4 (PDF p. 10)

• “Signatories will publish (e.g. via their websites) a summarised version of their Framework”

  Measure 10.2, first sentence (PDF p. 28)

Note: Access for the AI Office within five business days of confirmation. Publication of a summarised version is conditioned 'if and insofar as necessary to assess and/or mitigate systemic risks', allows removals, and is not necessary where all the Signatory's models are 'similarly safe or safer models' (Appendix 2.2).

Stated

• “Signatories will conduct at least state-of-the-art model evaluations”

  Measure 3.2, first paragraph (PDF p. 12)

• “at least before placing the model on the market”

  Measure 1.2, last paragraph (PDF p. 8)

Note: A full systemic risk assessment and mitigation process (identification, analysis including model evaluations, acceptance determination, mitigation) is carried out at least before placing on the market and when the Measure 7.6 conditions are met; lighter-touch evaluations and post-market monitoring continue along the model lifecycle (Measures 1.2 and 3.5).

Stated

• “Signatories will ensure that adequately qualified independent external evaluators conduct model evaluations”

  Appendix 3.5, first paragraph (PDF p. 40)

Note: Subject to two exceptions in Appendix 3.5: the model is a 'similarly safe or safer model', or the Signatory fails to appoint qualified evaluators despite early search efforts. Measure 3.5 separately provides access for independent external evaluators for post-market monitoring, and Appendix 4.5 refers to security reviews by an independent external party.

Stated

• “an initial report that is submitted to the AI Office”

  Measure 9.3, first paragraph (PDF p. 26)

• “not later than two days after the Signatories become aware of the involvement of their model in the incident”

  Measure 9.3, point (1) (PDF p. 26)

Note: Initial-report deadlines run by type of serious incident: two days (critical infrastructure disruption), five days (serious cybersecurity breach), 10 days (death), 15 days (serious harm to health, fundamental-rights infringement, property or environment), 'save in exceptional circumstances'. Reports go to the AI Office and, as applicable, national competent authorities; intermediate reports at least every four weeks and a final report within 60 days of resolution.

Stated

• “creating a Safety and Security Model Report (“Model Report”) before placing a model on the market”

  Commitment 7, first paragraph (PDF p. 18)

• “provide the AI Office with access to the Model Report”

  Measure 7.7, first paragraph (PDF p. 22)

Note: The Model Report is due to the AI Office by the time the model is placed on the market, and access to an updated Model Report is given within five business days of a confirmed update; a delay of up to 15 business days is possible under conditions. A summarised version is published 'if and insofar as necessary' (Measure 10.2). Measure 10.1 adds documentation kept for the AI Office on request. Measure 3.5 lists watermarks among example post-market monitoring methods; no output-labelling duty is set.

Stated

• “Signatories will not take any legal or technical retaliation against the independent external evaluators”

  Measure 3.5, paragraph on independent external evaluators, sentence before conditions (1)–(5) (PDF p. 14)

• “not retaliating in any form”

  Measure 8.3, point (7) (PDF p. 25)

Note: The Measure 3.5 commitment covers independent external evaluators, for their testing and/or publication of findings, as long as they meet five listed conditions. Measure 8.3 lists non-retaliation against persons providing information about systemic risks to competent authorities, and a published whistleblower protection policy, as examples of indicators of a healthy risk culture rather than as separate commitments. Recital (d) states that Measure 8.3 is without prejudice to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Article 87 AI Act.

Stated

• “To serve as a guiding document for demonstrating compliance with the obligations provided for in Articles 53 and 55 AI Act”

  Objectives, point A (PDF p. 2)

• “adherence to the Code does not constitute conclusive evidence of compliance with these obligations under the AI Act”

  Objectives, point A (PDF p. 2)

• “Signatories commit to adopting a state-of-the-art Safety and Security Framework (“Framework”).”

  Commitment 1, first paragraph (PDF p. 6)

Note: The Code requires a Signatory's own Framework (Commitment 1) and presents itself as a guiding document for compliance with Articles 53 and 55 AI Act. Recital (d) states that Signatories 'may be able to rely on international standards' to the extent they cover the Chapter's provisions.

Stated

• “together with its affiliates collectively had annual gross revenues in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) in the preceding calendar year.”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(j)

• “has trained, or initiated the training of, a frontier model”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(h)

Note: Two defined terms bear the duties: “frontier developer” (§ 22757.11(h)) and “large frontier developer” (§ 22757.11(j)), a frontier developer whose revenues with affiliates exceeded $500 million in the preceding calendar year. The framework duty (§ 22757.12(a)), the transparency-report summaries of risk assessments (§ 22757.12(c)(2)), internal-use summaries (§ 22757.12(d)) and the anonymous internal process (Lab. Code § 1107.1(e)) fall on large frontier developers; the transparency report (§ 22757.12(c)(1)), incident reporting (§ 22757.13(c)) and the anti-retaliation rule (Lab. Code § 1107.1(a)) fall on all frontier developers.

Stated

• “Frontier model” means a foundation model that was trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations.”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(i)(1)

• “together with its affiliates collectively had annual gross revenues in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) in the preceding calendar year.”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(j)

Note: Model threshold: training compute greater than 10^26 operations, which under § 22757.11(i)(2) includes the original training run and subsequent fine-tuning, reinforcement learning or other material modifications. Developer tier: annual gross revenues with affiliates above $500 million in the preceding calendar year. § 22757.14 requires the Department of Technology to recommend, on or before 1 January 2027 and annually thereafter, whether and how to update these definitions; it does not itself change them.

Stated

• “A large frontier developer shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(a), opening clause

• “review and, as appropriate, update its frontier AI framework at least once per year.”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(b)(1)

Note: Applies to large frontier developers. “Frontier AI framework” is defined in § 22757.11(g) as documented technical and organizational protocols to manage, assess and mitigate catastrophic risks; § 22757.12(a)(1)–(10) lists the matters the framework describes, including thresholds, mitigations, third-party assessment, cybersecurity, incident response, internal governance and internal use.

Stated

• “A large frontier developer shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(a), opening clause

• “publish the modified frontier AI framework and a justification for that modification within 30 days.”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(b)(2)

Note: Publication on the developer’s website; a materially modified framework is published with a justification within 30 days. § 22757.12(f) permits redactions to protect trade secrets, cybersecurity, public safety or national security or to comply with law, with the character and justification of each redaction described and the unredacted information retained for five years. No provision requiring the framework itself to be submitted to a public authority was found.

Stated

• “report any critical safety incident pertaining to one or more of its frontier models to the Office of Emergency Services within 15 days of discovering the critical safety incident.”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(1)

• “the frontier developer shall disclose that incident within 24 hours to an authority, including any law enforcement agency or public safety agency with jurisdiction, that is appropriate based on the nature of that incident and as required by law”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(2)

Note: Applies to all frontier developers. Fifteen days from discovery to the Office of Emergency Services; 24 hours to an appropriate authority where the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury. “Critical safety incident” is defined in § 22757.11(d). § 22757.13(h)–(i) provides that compliance with a designated federal law, regulation or guidance document is deemed compliance with the section (see Q15).

Stated

• “Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a frontier developer shall clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a transparency report”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(1)

• “every three months or pursuant to another reasonable schedule specified by the large frontier developer and communicated in writing to the Office of Emergency Services”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(d)

Note: Trigger: before or concurrently with deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model. Contents: website, contact mechanism, release date, languages, output modalities, intended uses and use restrictions (§ 22757.12(c)(1)(A)–(G)); large frontier developers add summaries of catastrophic-risk assessments, results, third-party evaluator involvement and other framework steps (§ 22757.12(c)(2)). Large frontier developers also transmit summaries of internal-use risk assessments to the Office of Emergency Services on the stated schedule (§ 22757.12(d)). No output-labelling duty was seen.

Stated

• “prevents a covered employee from disclosing, or retaliates against a covered employee for disclosing,”

  SEC. 4, Lab. Code § 1107.1(a)

• “a reasonable internal process through which a covered employee may anonymously disclose information”

  SEC. 4, Lab. Code § 1107.1(e)(1)

Note: Protection covers “covered employees”, defined in Lab. Code § 1107(b) as employees responsible for assessing, managing or addressing risk of critical safety incidents, who disclose to the Attorney General, a federal authority or persons with authority over the matter information on a specific and substantial danger from a catastrophic risk or a violation of the Act. The internal anonymous process (§ 1107.1(e)) is a duty of large frontier developers; § 1107.1(d) requires notice of rights, and § 1107.1(f)–(h) provide attorney’s fees, a burden-of-proof rule and injunctive relief.

Stated

• Paraphrase: The chaptered version's record lists the action of approval by the Governor, dated 29 September 2025.

  CAML record, caml:History (action APPROVED)

Note: Approval by the Governor, 29 September 2025 (Chapter 138, Statutes of 2025); the same record gives FILED 2025-09-29 (filing with the Secretary of State). These are the Legislative Counsel database’s structured action fields; the printed approval line (“Approved by Governor September 29, 2025”) is in the chaptered text on the Legislature’s website, quoted in the dataset’s record of the approval.

Stated

• “does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) per violation.”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15(a)

Note: Per violation, in an amount dependent on the severity of the violation. § 22757.15(a) names large frontier developers that fail to publish or transmit a compliant document, make a statement in violation of § 22757.12(e), fail to report an incident under § 22757.13 or fail to comply with their own framework. Whistleblower violations (Lab. Code § 1107.1) carry the civil remedies of that section, not this penalty.

Stated

• “A civil penalty described in this section shall be recovered in a civil action brought only by the Attorney General.”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15(b)

• “report any critical safety incident pertaining to one or more of its frontier models to the Office of Emergency Services within 15 days of discovering the critical safety incident.”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(1)

Note: The Attorney General recovers civil penalties. The Office of Emergency Services receives incident reports and internal-use summaries, reviews incident reports (§ 22757.13(d)) and may designate equivalent federal standards (§ 22757.13(h)); no penalty power is given to it.

Stated

• “A large frontier developer shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(a), opening clause

• “shall declare its intent to do so to the Office of Emergency Services.”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(i)(1)

• “including a system card or model card, shall be deemed in compliance with the applicable paragraph.”

  SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(3)

Note: Requires a developer framework, which describes how the developer approaches incorporating national standards, international standards and industry-consensus best practices (§ 22757.12(a)(1)). A frontier developer that declares its intent to comply with § 22757.13 through a federal law, regulation or guidance document designated by the Office of Emergency Services is “deemed in compliance” with that section to the extent it meets it (§ 22757.13(i)(2)(A)). Publishing transparency-report contents in a system or model card is deemed compliance (§ 22757.12(c)(3)). § 22757.12(c)(4) encourages disclosures consistent with industry best practices.

Stated

• "Large developer" means a person that has trained at least one frontier model and has spent over one hundred million dollars in compute costs in aggregate in training frontier models.”

  Proposed GBL § 1420(9), p. 3, lines 4–6

Note: One tier: “large developer”. Accredited colleges and universities engaged in academic research are excluded, and a transferee of full intellectual property rights in a frontier model becomes the large developer (§ 1420(9)). Text as signed in Chapter 699; Chapter 96 of 2026 repeals and re-adds Article 44-B (see the amended text).

Stated

• “an artificial intelligence model trained using greater than 10º26 computational operations”

  Proposed GBL § 1420(6)(a), p. 2, lines 28–30

• “the compute cost of which exceeds one hundred million dollars”

  Proposed GBL § 1420(6)(a), p. 2, line 30

• "Large developer" means a person that has trained at least one frontier model and has spent over one hundred million dollars in compute costs in aggregate in training frontier models.”

  Proposed GBL § 1420(9), p. 3, lines 4–6

Note: The PDF text layer renders the exponent as “10º26”, i.e. 10^26 operations. Model condition: more than 10^26 operations and compute cost above $100 million; a model produced by knowledge distillation from such a model is also a frontier model where its compute cost exceeds $5 million (§ 1420(6)(b)). Developer condition: over $100 million in aggregate compute costs for training frontier models. § 1424 limits the article to frontier models developed, deployed or operating in whole or in part in New York.

Stated

• “Before deploying a frontier model, the large developer of such frontier model shall do all of the following: (a) Implement a written safety and security protocol”

  Proposed GBL § 1421(1)(a), p. 4, lines 10–12

Note: “Safety and security protocol” is defined in § 1420(12) (p. 3) as documented technical and organizational protocols describing protections against critical harm, cybersecurity protections, a testing procedure, compliance and senior responsible personnel. § 1421(3) requires an annual review.

Stated

• “Conspicuously publish a copy of the safety and security protocol with appropriate redactions”

  Proposed GBL § 1421(1)(c)(i), p. 4, lines 18–19

• “transmit a copy of such redacted safety and security protocol to the attorney general and division of homeland security and emergency services”

  Proposed GBL § 1421(1)(c)(i), p. 4, lines 18–21

Note: Before deploying a frontier model. Publication with “appropriate redactions” (defined in § 1420(1)) and transmission of the redacted copy to the attorney general and the division of homeland security and emergency services; § 1421(1)(c)(ii) adds access upon request (see Q06). Material modifications after annual review are published in the same manner (§ 1421(3)).

Stated

• “A large developer shall disclose each safety incident affecting the frontier model to the attorney general and division of homeland security and emergency services within seventy-two hours”

  Proposed GBL § 1421(4), p. 4, lines 43–45

Note: Seventy-two hours from learning of the incident or of facts sufficient for a reasonable belief that one occurred. “Safety incident” is defined in § 1420(13). The disclosure includes the date, the reasons the incident qualifies and a short statement.

Stated

• “12/19/2025 SIGNED CHAP.699”

  Assembly bill record for S06953, Actions, entry 12/19/2025

Note: Signature by the Governor, 19 December 2025, as Chapter 699 of 2025, according to the Assembly’s action list; the list also records delivery to the Governor on 12/09/2025 and an approval memo (APPROVAL MEMO.76) on the same day as signature.

Stated

• “§ 3. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.”

  Bill § 3, p. 5, lines 32–33

• Paraphrase: The Assembly's bill record for S06953 lists, on 12/19/2025, the action SIGNED CHAP.699.

  Assembly bill record for S06953, Actions, entry 12/19/2025

Computed date: 2026-03-19, counted from the rule; the text states no calendar date.

Note: The calendar date is computed; the text states only the rule. It is the rule of the text as signed and not a finding that the text took effect: Chapter 96 of 2026, signed on 27 March 2026, amends this section 3 so that the 2025 chapter takes effect on 1 January 2027, and whether the 2025 text took effect before that amendment is held (maintainer decision 9a of 2026-11-03). The chapter as printed in the session laws was not inspected.

Stated

• “a civil penalty in an amount not exceeding ten million dollars for a first violation and in an amount not exceeding thirty million dollars for any subsequent violation”

  Proposed GBL § 1422(1)(a), p. 5, lines 4–7

Note: For violations of § 1421, determined based on severity of the violation, in a civil action by the attorney general; injunctive or declaratory relief is also available (§ 1422(1)(b)). No private right of action (§ 1422(2)).

Stated

• “The attorney general may bring a civil action”

  Proposed GBL § 1422(1), p. 5, line 1

Note: The attorney general enforces through civil action. The division of homeland security and emergency services receives the protocol and incident disclosures alongside the attorney general (§ 1421(1)(c), (4)); no enforcement power is given to it.

Stated

• “Before deploying a frontier model, the large developer of such frontier model shall do all of the following: (a) Implement a written safety and security protocol”

  Proposed GBL § 1421(1)(a), p. 4, lines 10–12

• “industry best practices”

  Proposed GBL § 1421(3), p. 4, line 38

Note: Requires a developer’s written safety and security protocol. The annual review accounts for changes to model capabilities “and industry best practices” (§ 1421(3)). No code of practice or standard is named as a means of compliance, and no deemed-compliance provision was found.

Stated

• "Large frontier developer" means a frontier developer that … collectively had annual gross revenues in excess … of five hundred million dollars in the preceding calendar year”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1420(10) as re-added), p. 3, lines 53–55

• "Frontier developer" means a person who has trained, or initiated”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1420(8) as re-added), p. 3, line 41

Note: Two defined terms bear the duties: “frontier developer” (transparency report, incident reporting, statements) and “large frontier developer” (framework, internal-use summaries, disclosure statement under § 1428, penalties under § 1427). § 1426 excludes accredited colleges and universities engaged in academic research and the Empire AI consortium. Ellipses in quotes from this record skip omitted words or the printed line numbers. These duties are in Article 44-B as re-added, which takes effect on 1 January 2027 (Q11).

Stated

• "Frontier model" means a foundation model that was trained … using a quantity of computing power greater than”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1420(9)(a) as re-added), p. 3, lines 46–47

• "Large frontier developer" means a frontier developer that … collectively had annual gross revenues in excess … of five hundred million dollars in the preceding calendar year”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1420(10) as re-added), p. 3, lines 53–55

Note: The Assembly record renders the figure after “greater than” as an unreadable character between “10” and “26” followed by “integer or floating-point operations”; the Senate PDF of S8828 (cross-check copy, not quoted) prints 10º26, i.e. 10^26. Compute includes subsequent fine-tuning, reinforcement learning and other material modifications (§ 1420(9)(b)). Developer tier: revenues with affiliates above $500 million. § 1425 limits the article to models developed, deployed or operating in whole or in part in New York.

Stated

• “A large frontier developer shall … write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on … its internet website a frontier AI framework”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1421(1) as re-added), p. 4, lines 14–16

Note: The same wording is quoted in an earlier record of the dataset, split at the printed line numbers. “Frontier AI framework” is defined in § 1420(7) as documented technical and organizational protocols to manage, assess and mitigate catastrophic risks; § 1421(1)(a)–(j) lists what it describes “in detail”. Annual review under § 1421(2)(a).

Stated

• “A large frontier developer shall … write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on … its internet website a frontier AI framework”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1421(1) as re-added), p. 4, lines 14–16

Note: Publication on the developer’s website; a materially modified framework and a justification are published within thirty days (§ 1421(2)(b)). Redactions are permitted under § 1421(5). No duty to submit the framework to the office was found; § 1429 allows the office to consider requirements for “the transmission of frontier AI frameworks to the office”.

Stated

• “shall report any critical safety incident … to the office within seventy-two hours”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1422(3)(a) as re-added), p. 6, lines 9–10

Note: Applies to all frontier developers. Seventy-two hours from a determination that an incident occurred or from learning facts sufficient for a reasonable belief that it occurred, to the office; twenty-four hours to an appropriate authority, including law enforcement or public safety agencies, where the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury. Compliance through a designated federal standard is deemed compliance (§ 1422(9), see Q15). Article 44-B as re-added takes effect on 1 January 2027 (Q11).

Stated

• “Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or … tier developer shall clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet … website a transparency report”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1421(3)(a) as re-added), p. 4, lines 50–53

Note: Trigger: before or concurrently with deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model. Contents listed in § 1421(3)(a)(i)–(vii); large frontier developers add summaries of risk assessments, results, third-party evaluator involvement and other framework steps (§ 1421(3)(b)). Large frontier developers also transmit internal-use assessment summaries to the office (§ 1422(2)(a)) and file a developer-level disclosure statement with the office (§ 1428). No output-labelling duty was seen.

Stated

• “03/27/2026 SIGNED CHAP.96”

  Actions list, final entry

Note: Signature by the Governor, 27 March 2026, as Chapter 96 of 2026, according to the Assembly’s action list (delivered to the Governor 03/20/2026). The chapter as printed in the session laws was not inspected.

Stated

• “This act shall take effect immediately; provided, however that … sections one, two and four of this act shall take … effect on the same date”

  Bill text, § 5, p. 9, lines 40–45

• “§ 3. This act shall take effect [on the ninetieth day after it shall … have become a law] January 1, 2027.”

  Bill text, § 3 (text of amended section 3 of Chapter 699), p. 9, lines 31–32

Note: Chapter 96 takes effect immediately, except that sections 1, 2 (Article 44-B as re-added) and 4 take effect with the 2025 chapter (Chapter 699). Its § 3 amends Chapter 699’s effect section: the bracketed words are deleted matter (the former ninetieth-day rule) and the new text reads “January 1, 2027”. The resulting date for Article 44-B, 1 January 2027, follows from reading the two provisions together.

Stated

• “not to exceed one million … dollars for a first violation and in an amount not to exceed three … million dollars per subsequent violation”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1427(1) as re-added), p. 8, lines 7–10

• Paraphrase: Section 1428(5)(a) as re-added sets a penalty of $1,000 for each day.

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1428(5)(a) as re-added), p. 9, line 10

Note: § 1427(1): per violation, determined based on severity, where a large frontier developer fails to publish or transmit a compliant document, makes a prohibited statement, fails to report an incident or fails to comply with its own framework; no private right of action (§ 1427(2)). § 1428(5): for failure to file a disclosure statement or to correct false information, $1,000 per day plus assessments owed, levied by the office after notice and hearing.

Stated

• Paraphrase: Section 1427(1) as re-added lets the attorney general sue in a civil action for the penalties.

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1427(1) as re-added), p. 8, line 7

• “the office may, after notice and hearing, levy civil”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1428(5) as re-added), p. 9, line 8

Note: The attorney general brings civil actions for penalties under § 1427. “Office” is defined in § 1420(16) as an office within the department of financial services reporting to the superintendent; it receives incident reports and disclosure statements, levies penalties under § 1428(5), assesses developers for operating costs (§ 1428(4)) and may adopt rules (§ 1429).

Stated

• “incorporating national standards, international standards, and”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1421(1)(a) as re-added), p. 4, line 19

• “the frontier developer shall be deemed in compliance with”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1422(9)(b)(i) as re-added), p. 7, line 28

• “including a system card or model card, shall be deemed in compliance”

  Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1421(3)(c) as re-added), p. 5, lines 21–22

Note: Requires a developer framework (§ 1421(1), Q03) that describes how it handles incorporating national and international standards and industry consensus best practices. A frontier developer that declares its intent to meet § 1422(3) through a federal law, regulation or guidance document designated by the office is deemed in compliance with that subdivision to the extent it meets the standards of, or complies with, the designated federal law, regulation or guidance document, and must copy federal incident reports to the office (§ 1422(9)). Publishing transparency-report contents in a system or model card is deemed compliance (§ 1421(3)(c)).

Stated

• “Frontier developer” means a person who trains, or … initiates the training of, a frontier model”

  Section 5, definition of “frontier developer”, PDF pp. 3–4

• “Large frontier developer” means a frontier developer that, together with its affiliates, collectively had annual gross revenues in excess of $500,000,000 in the preceding calendar year.”

  Section 5, definition of “large frontier developer”, PDF p. 4

Note: Two tiers in the act's defined terms. The transparency report (Section 10(c)(1)), incident reporting (Section 15(c)), the statements rule (Section 10(f)(1)) and the whistleblower duties (Section 20(a)–(d)) fall on frontier developers; the framework (Section 10(a)–(b)), the risk summaries in the transparency report (Section 10(c)(2)), the audit (Section 10(d)), internal-use summaries (Section 10(e)), the internal reporting process (Section 20(e)) and the disclosure statement (Section 18) fall on large frontier developers. “Person” is defined as a nongovernmental individual or organisation (Section 5). “…” in the quotation stands for the running footer at a PDF page break; no words of the act are omitted.

Stated

• “Frontier model” means a foundation model that was trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10 26 integer or floating-point operations.”

  Section 5, definition of “frontier model”, first sentence, PDF p. 4

• “Large frontier developer” means a frontier developer that, together with its affiliates, collectively had annual gross revenues in excess of $500,000,000 in the preceding calendar year.”

  Section 5, definition of “large frontier developer”, PDF p. 4

Note: Model threshold: training compute greater than 10^26 operations, which under the second sentence of the definition includes the original training run and any subsequent fine-tuning, reinforcement learning or other material modifications the developer applies to a preceding foundation model. Developer threshold for the large tier: gross revenues with affiliates above $500 million in the preceding calendar year. The PDF prints the exponent as a superscript; its text layer gives “10 26”, which the quotation keeps (the figure is 10^26, as with the EU row's “1025”). The cross-family checker, reading the act independently, quoted the same words with the exponent printed as “10²⁶” (maintainer decision 2a of 2026-11-05).

Stated

• “Beginning January 1, 2028, a large frontier developer … shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its website a frontier AI framework”

  Section 10(a), opening clause, PDF pp. 4–5

• “Frontier AI framework” means documented technical and organizational protocols to manage, assess, and mitigate catastrophic risks.”

  Section 5, definition of “frontier AI framework”, PDF p. 3

Note: Applies to large frontier developers from 1 January 2028. Section 10(a)(1)–(10) lists the matters the framework describes, among them thresholds, mitigations, third-party assessment, cybersecurity for unreleased model weights, critical safety incidents and internal use; Section 10(b)(1) requires review and, as appropriate, update at least once a year. “…” in the quotation stands for the running footer at a PDF page break; no words of the act are omitted.

Stated

• “Beginning January 1, 2028, a large frontier developer … shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its website a frontier AI framework”

  Section 10(a), opening clause, PDF pp. 4–5

• “publish on its website the modified frontier AI framework and a justification for that modification within 30 days.”

  Section 10(b)(2), PDF p. 6

Note: Publication on the developer's website; a materially modified framework is published with a justification within 30 days. Section 10(g) permits redactions to protect trade secrets, cybersecurity, public safety or national security or to comply with law, with the character and justification of each redaction described. No provision found requiring the framework itself to be submitted to the Agency. “…” in the quotation stands for the running footer at a PDF page break; no words of the act are omitted.

Stated

• “a large frontier developer shall annually retain a third party to perform an independent audit of compliance with the requirements of this Section.”

  Section 10(d), first sentence, PDF p. 8

Note: An annual independent audit of the large frontier developer's compliance with Section 10 (framework, transparency report, internal-use summaries, statements, redactions): an assessment of the developer's practices, not a test of the model. It begins on 1 January 2028 or 90 days after the developer first qualifies as a large frontier developer, whichever is later. The auditor must have no financial interest in the developer (or the developer in it), must have access to unredacted materials, reports on substantial compliance and internal controls (Section 10(d)(1)–(2)); a redacted copy and a summary are published and sent to the Agency and the Attorney General within 30 days (Section 10(d)(4)). The Agency and the Attorney General also review incident reports (Section 15(d)), a review of filings.

Stated

• “A frontier developer shall report any critical safety incident pertaining to one or more of its frontier models to … the Agency and the Attorney General within 72 hours of the frontier developer learning facts sufficient to establish a reasonable belief that a critical safety incident has occurred.”

  Section 15(c), first sentence, PDF pp. 12–13

• “the frontier developer shall disclose that incident within 24 hours to an authority”

  Section 15(c), third sentence, PDF p. 13

Note: Applies to all frontier developers. Seventy-two hours to the Agency (the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security, Section 5) and the Attorney General; 24 hours to an appropriate authority, including law enforcement or public safety agencies, where the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury. “Critical safety incident” is defined in Section 5 (unauthorised access to model weights resulting in death or bodily injury, harm from a catastrophic risk, loss of control causing death or bodily injury, deceptive subversion of controls). “…” in the quotation stands for the running footer at a PDF page break; no words of the act are omitted.

Stated

• “Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a frontier developer shall clearly and conspicuously publish on its website a transparency report”

  Section 10(c)(1), opening clause, PDF p. 6

Note: Trigger: before or concurrently with deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model. Contents: website, contact mechanism, release date, languages, output modalities, intended uses and restrictions (Section 10(c)(1)(A)–(G)); a large frontier developer adds summaries of catastrophic-risk assessments, their results, third-party evaluators' involvement and other framework steps, in machine-readable form (Section 10(c)(2)–(3)). Publication within a system card or model card is deemed compliance (Section 10(c)(4)). Separately, large frontier developers send the Agency summaries of internal-use risk assessments every 3 months or on another schedule (Section 10(e)), and file an annual disclosure statement on the developer's identity, offices, owners and contacts (Section 18), which is not a report on each model. No labelling or watermark duty on outputs was found.

Stated

• “prevents a covered employee from disclosing, or retaliates … against a covered employee for disclosing, information to the Agency, Attorney General, a federal authority”

  Section 20(a), PDF pp. 19–20

• “a reasonable internal process through which a covered employee may anonymously disclose information”

  Section 20(e)(1), PDF p. 21

• “An employer may not take retaliatory action against an employee for disclosing or threatening to disclose in good faith any violation of the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act.”

  Section 90, Whistleblower Act Sec. 15(e), PDF p. 55

Note: A frontier developer may not adopt or enforce a rule, policy or contract that prevents, or retaliate against, disclosure by a “covered employee” (an employee responsible for assessing, managing or addressing the risk of critical safety incidents, Section 5) who has reasonable cause to believe the information shows a specific and substantial danger from a catastrophic risk or a violation of the act (Section 20(a)); notice of rights is required (Section 20(d)); large frontier developers provide an anonymous internal process with monthly updates (Section 20(e)). Section 90 amends the Whistleblower Act to protect any employee who discloses a violation of the act in good faith. “…” in the quotation stands for the running footer at a PDF page break; no words of the act are omitted.

Stated

• Paraphrase: The Actions table lists approval by the Governor (Senate) on 6 July 2026.

  Actions table, “Governor Approved” row (checker’s copy)

• Paraphrase: The Actions table lists passage by both houses (Senate) on 29 May 2026.

  Actions table, “Passed Both Houses” row (checker’s copy)

Note: Approval by the Governor, 6 July 2026; passage by both houses, 29 May 2026 (official bill status record of SB 315). The act’s own text carries no date. The preparer could not open the record. The cell rests on the cross-family checker’s copy of it, read through an Internet Archive capture of 2026-07-31 and labelled as that copy; it is given as a paraphrase because the record’s length is not known. Executive Order 2026-07 (22 September 2026) states that the Governor signed the act, without a date; its date is the order’s, not the act’s.

Stated

• “This Act takes effect January 1, 2027.”

  Section 99, PDF p. 56

Note: A stated date, not computed. Whether the act has taken effect is not recorded here.

Stated

• “Beginning January 1, 2028, a large frontier developer … shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its website a frontier AI framework”

  Section 10(a), opening clause, PDF pp. 4–5

• “Beginning on January 1, 2028 or 90 days after a developer first qualifies as a large frontier developer, whichever is later”

  Section 10(d), first sentence, PDF p. 8

Note: The framework duty applies from 1 January 2028 and the audit duty from 1 January 2028 or 90 days after first qualifying, whichever is later; both fall later than the act's effect date of 1 January 2027 (Section 99). Section 18(a)'s disclosure statement applies “beginning January 1, 2027”, the same day as the act. The transparency report, incident reporting and whistleblower duties set no date of their own. No transitional provision for models already deployed was found; the transparency report is triggered by deployment. “…” in the quotation stands for the running footer at a PDF page break; no words of the act are omitted.

Stated

• “does not exceed $1,000,000 for the first violation. For a subsequent violation, the civil penalty may not exceed $3,000,000 per violation.”

  Section 25(a), PDF p. 22

• “a civil penalty of $1,000 for each day the person fails to file a disclosure”

  Section 18(e)(1), PDF p. 19

Note: Section 25(a): a civil penalty dependent on the severity of the violation, up to $1 million for a first violation and $3 million per subsequent violation, for a large frontier developer that fails to publish or transmit a compliant document, makes a statement in violation of Section 10(f), fails to have the audit performed, fails to report a critical safety incident under Section 15 or fails to comply with its own framework. Section 18(e): for developing, deploying or operating without a current disclosure statement, false information or unpaid assessments, $1,000 per day plus the assessments owed, after notice and hearing, in addition to other penalties. Section 25(d) creates no private right of action.

Stated

• “A civil penalty described in this Section shall be recovered in a civil action brought exclusively by the Attorney General.”

  Section 25(b), first sentence, PDF p. 22

• “the Agency may, after notice and hearing, levy civil penalties, fees, and costs”

  Section 18(e), PDF p. 19

Note: The Attorney General recovers the Section 25 penalties. The Agency (the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security) levies the Section 18 disclosure penalties, receives incident reports, audit reports and internal-use summaries with the Attorney General, reviews incident reports with the Attorney General (Section 15(d)) and designates equivalent federal standards (Section 17(a)).

Stated

• “Beginning January 1, 2028, a large frontier developer … shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its website a frontier AI framework”

  Section 10(a), opening clause, PDF pp. 4–5

• “the frontier developer shall be deemed in compliance with this Act to the extent that the frontier developer meets the standards of, or complies with the requirements imposed or stated by, the designated federal law, regulation, or guidance document”

  Section 17(b)(2)(A), PDF p. 16

• “including a system card or model card, shall be deemed in compliance with the applicable paragraph.”

  Section 10(c)(4), PDF p. 8

Note: Requires a developer framework, which describes how the developer approaches incorporating national standards, international standards and industry-consensus best practices (Section 10(a)(1)); penalises failure to comply with it (Section 25(a)). Deems compliance with a federal law, regulation or guidance document that the Agency designates as substantially equivalent, once the developer declares its intent to the Agency (Section 17(a)–(b)); failure to meet the designated standard is then a violation of the act (Section 17(b)(2)(B)). Deems a transparency report published within a system card or model card compliant (Section 10(c)(4)). Audits follow generally accepted auditing standards (Section 10(d)). “…” in the quotation stands for the running footer at a PDF page break; no words of the act are omitted.

Stated

• “生成式人工智能服务提供者（以下称提供者）”

  Working translation: providers of generative AI services (hereinafter 'providers')

  Article 7 (第七条), chapeau

• “包括通过提供可编程接口等方式提供生成式人工智能服务”

  Working translation: including providing generative AI services by means such as providing programmable interfaces

  Article 22 (第二十二条), point (2)

Note: The duties fall on 生成式人工智能服务提供者 (providers of generative AI services), defined in Article 22(2) as organisations and individuals that use generative AI technology to provide generative AI services, including through programmable interfaces. The Measures do not define a developer; they have no tiers. Some provisions (Article 4) address both provision and use; Article 22(3) defines users (使用者). Translations are Selekoa's working translations.

Stated

• “2023年7月10日”

  Working translation: 10 July 2023

  Order No. 15 (令第15号), date line

Note: Date of the order of seven authorities (国家互联网信息办公室, 国家发展和改革委员会, 教育部, 科学技术部, 工业和信息化部, 公安部, 国家广播电视总局), Order No. 15, issuing the Measures (gov.cn 成文日期 2023-07-10). The order also states that the Measures were deliberated and adopted at the 12th office meeting of 2023 of the Cyberspace Administration of China on 23 May 2023, with the agreement of the other six authorities (paraphrase, not quoted to save budget).

Stated

• “本办法自2023年8月15日起施行。”

  Working translation: These Measures take effect on 15 August 2023.

  Article 24 (第二十四条)

Note: Fixed date in the Measures; the order repeats it (现予公布，自2023年8月15日起施行).

Stated

• “网信、发展改革、教育、科技、工业和信息化、公安、广播电视、新闻出版等部门”

  Working translation: the cyberspace, development and reform, education, science and technology, industry and information technology, public security, radio and television, press and publication and other departments

  Article 16 (第十六条), first paragraph

Note: These departments strengthen the management of generative AI services 'according to their respective duties' (Article 16). Supervision and inspection (Article 19) and penalties (Article 21) are assigned to 'competent authorities' (有关主管部门) without further naming; Article 20 names the national cyberspace department (国家网信部门) for services provided from outside China.

Stated

• “符合…规定情形的网络信息服务提供者（以下简称“服务提供者”）”

  Working translation: network information service providers that fall within the circumstances provided for in [the three named rules] (hereinafter 'service providers')

  Article 2 (第二条)

• “开展人工智能生成合成内容标识活动，适用本办法”

  Working translation: [when they] carry out labelling of AI-generated synthetic content, these Measures apply

  Article 2 (第二条), closing words

Note: The principal duties fall on 服务提供者 (service providers): network information service providers within the circumstances of the Algorithmic Recommendation Provisions, the Deep Synthesis Provisions or the Interim Measures for Generative AI Services. Other duties fall on service providers offering content-dissemination services (Article 6), internet application distribution platforms (Article 7), and users and 'any organisation or individual' (Article 10). The Measures do not address model developers as such and have no tiers.

Stated

• “2025年3月7日”

  Working translation: 7 March 2025

  Notice, date line

• “国信办通字〔2025〕2号”

  Working translation: Guoxinban Tongzi [2025] No. 2

  Notice header

Note: Date of the notice of four authorities (国家互联网信息办公室, 工业和信息化部, 公安部, 国家广播电视总局) issuing (印发) the Measures to provincial-level counterparts (gov.cn 成文日期 2025-03-07).

Stated

• “本办法自2025年9月1日起施行。”

  Working translation: These Measures take effect on 1 September 2025.

  Article 14 (第十四条)

Note: Fixed date in the Measures.

Stated

• “由网信、电信、公安和广播电视等有关主管部门依据职责”

  Working translation: by the cyberspace, telecommunications, public security, radio and television and other competent authorities according to their duties

  Article 13 (第十三条)

Note: The listed authorities deal with breaches according to their duties, under other laws and rules (see Q13).

Stated

• “还应当符合相关法律、行政法规、部门规章和强制性国家标准的要求”

  Working translation: shall also comply with the requirements of relevant laws, administrative regulations, departmental rules and mandatory national standards

  Article 11 (第十一条)

Note: Service providers carrying out labelling 'shall also comply with' mandatory national standards (强制性国家标准); the Measures do not name a standard (no standard number appears in the text). No developer framework or code of practice is referred to. Articles 4 and 5 refer to the Deep Synthesis Provisions for the scope of explicit labelling and for implicit labels.

Stated

• “Until such technical conditions are defined, the Secretary shall require compliance with these reporting requirements for: (i) any model that was trained using a quantity of computing power greater than”

  Sec. 4.2(b)(i), 88 FR 75197

Note: Interim condition, until the Secretary of Commerce defines technical conditions under Sec. 4.2(b): more than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations, or more than 10^23 for a model trained primarily on biological sequence data. The quote stops before the figures, which the PDF text layer renders without superscript (“1026”, “1023”); the reading follows the dataset’s record of this threshold. Sec. 4.2(b)(ii) sets a separate condition for computing clusters.

Stated

• “THE WHITE HOUSE, October 30, 2023.”

  88 FR 75226, signature block

Note: Signature date as printed. Published in the Federal Register of 1 November 2023.

Stated

• “based on guidance developed by NIST pursuant to subsection 4.1(a)(ii) of this section”

  Sec. 4.2(a)(i)(C), 88 FR 75197

Note: Refers to: the red-team results to be reported are those based on NIST guidance that Sec. 4.1(a)(ii) directs NIST to establish. Sec. 4.1(a)(i) also directs NIST companion resources to the AI Risk Management Framework and the Secure Software Development Framework. No developer framework is required or recognised.

Stated

• “exporters, reexporters, and transferors”

  DATES, 90 FR 4544

• “The VEU may only store or transfer the model weights”

  Supplement No. 10 to part 748, para. 8, 90 FR 4565 (PDF p. 22)

Note: An export-control rule: duties fall on exporters, reexporters and transferors of controlled items, including model weights specified in ECCN 4E091 (licence requirement in § 742.6(a)(13); conditions of License Exception AIA in § 740.27), and on Data Center Validated End Users (VEUs) under Supplement No. 10 to part 748. The rule has no category of model developer as such.

Stated

• “4E091 ‘Parameters’ for an artificial intelligence model trained utilizing”

  ECCN 4E091 heading, 90 FR 4578 (PDF p. 35)

• “ECCN 4E091 excludes from the control any open-weight models”

  Supplementary information, section A, 90 FR 4555

Note: The heading continues with a figure that the PDF text layer renders as “1026” before “or more ‘operations’”, read as 10^26 operations; the quote stops before it. Notes 1 and 2 to 4E091 exclude published weights, models derived from them with no more than 2.5 × 10^25 additional operations or 25 percent (whichever is higher), and models trained with fewer operations than needed to match the most advanced published model.

Stated

• “reporting any theft, loss, or tampering incidents to BIS within 30 days”

  Supplement No. 10 to part 748, para. 16, 90 FR 4567 (PDF p. 24)

Note: Applies to VEUs, for chips and other export-controlled items in transit under a shipment security plan; it does not concern models. Para. 11 separately requires VEUs to notify BIS if any requirement has not been met, without a stated deadline.

Stated

• “Effective date: This rule is effective January 13. 2025.”

  DATES, 90 FR 4544

• “announced a rescission of the Biden Administration's AI Diffusion Rule”

  BIS press release, 13 May 2025, para. 1 (page served 2026-11-01)

• “BIS plans to publish a regulation formalizing the rescission”

  BIS press release, 13 May 2025, para. 3

Note: Effective 13 January 2025, as printed (with a full stop after “13”); section III of the supplementary information gives “January 13, 2025”. The Department of Commerce announced on 13 May 2025 that it had initiated a rescission and “plans to publish a regulation formalizing the rescission”; no Federal Register rescission was inspected, and the announcement is not recorded as a rescission of the rule.

Stated

• “exporters, reexporters, and transferors are not required to comply with the changes made in this rule until May 15, 2025”

  DATES, 90 FR 4544

• “paragraphs 14, 15, and 18 of supplement no. 10 to part 748 have a delayed compliance date of January 15, 2026”

  DATES, 90 FR 4544

Note: Compliance dates separate from the effective date: 15 May 2025 generally; 15 January 2026 for the data-centre security, AI-cybersecurity and personnel-security paragraphs that also apply to model-weight storage. The BIS announcement of 13 May 2025 is recorded under Q11 and Q14.

Stated

• “cooperate with BIS’s auditing of records and facilities”

  Supplement No. 10 to part 748, para. 11, 90 FR 4566 (PDF p. 23)

• “Failure to comply with BIS may result in revocation of VEU status”

  Supplement No. 10 to part 748, para. 11, 90 FR 4566 (PDF p. 23)

• Paraphrase: The press release says that BIS has told its enforcement officials not to enforce the AI Diffusion Rule.

  BIS press release, 13 May 2025, para. 4

Note: The Bureau of Industry and Security audits VEU records and facilities, may revoke VEU status and decides licence applications for 4E091 items (§ 742.6(b)(14)). The press release passage records an announced instruction on enforcement; it is not a provision of the rule.

Stated

• “The VEU’s datacenters must be compliant with NIST 800–53”

  Supplement No. 10 to part 748, para. 14, 90 FR 4566 (PDF p. 23)

• “Ensure compliance with all best practices in the NSA cybersecurity information sheet”

  Supplement No. 10 to part 748, para. 15(a), 90 FR 4566 (PDF p. 23)

• “technical opinions issued by the U.S. AI Safety Institute”

  ECCN 4E091 Note 2.a.1, 90 FR 4579 (PDF p. 36)

Note: Requires: VEU data centres, and facilities storing 4E091 weights under License Exception AIA, must comply with NIST 800–53 consistent with FedRAMP High and with the NSA sheet “Deploying AI Systems Securely”. May rely on: an exporter may self-classify for the 4E091 exclusion by relying on BIS guidance or technical opinions of the U.S. AI Safety Institute and the Department of Energy. No developer safety framework is referred to.