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.