Pennsylvania’s Other Frontier-AI Bill Would Set a 10^26 Threshold and Catastrophic-Risk Guardrails

HB 2829 would create a separate safety, transparency and reporting framework for certain frontier-model developers. It has been introduced and heard in committee, but it is not Pennsylvania law.

Pennsylvania is considering more than one approach to frontier-AI governance. House Bill 2829, the proposed Frontier Artificial Intelligence Safety, Transparency and Accountability Act, would establish a detailed state framework for developers of the largest general-purpose models.

The bill was introduced and referred to the House Communications & Technology Committee on October 5, 2026. The committee held a public hearing on October 19 that listed both HB 2829 and the separate HB 2800. But the formal action history still shows no vote, committee report, passage or later printer’s number. HB 2829 is therefore a pending proposal, not an active Pennsylvania compliance regime.

A more specific frontier-model threshold

The controlling text, Printer’s No. 4002, defines a frontier model as a foundation model trained using more than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations. The calculation includes the original training run and any subsequent fine-tuning, reinforcement learning or other material modifications the developer applies to a preceding foundation model.

That is only one part of the bill’s coverage framework. A “frontier developer” is a person that trains or initiates training of such a model. A “large frontier developer” is a frontier developer that, together with affiliates, had more than $500 million in annual gross revenue in the preceding calendar year.

The bill would apply only to frontier models developed, deployed or operating in whole or in part in Pennsylvania. It says it should not be read to prohibit lawful AI research, development, testing or evaluation, or to impose a duty solely because a person works with an AI model that is not a frontier model.

Different obligations for different developers

HB 2829 does not assign every proposed duty to every frontier developer.

Beginning January 1, 2028—if the bill were enacted—large frontier developers would have to file a current disclosure statement with the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency before developing, deploying or operating a covered model in the Commonwealth. They would also have to publish, implement, review at least annually and, as appropriate, update a frontier-AI framework describing how they assess and mitigate catastrophic risks, use third parties, secure unreleased model weights, respond to critical safety incidents and govern internal use of covered models.

The proposal would require an annual independent audit for large frontier developers beginning January 1, 2028, or 90 days after a developer first qualifies as large, whichever is later. A developer that first qualifies as large after the effective date would have 90 days to comply with Chapter 5. The bill specifies independence protections, audit-report content, retention rules and publication of a high-level summary plus a redacted report.

Some proposed requirements extend to frontier developers more generally. Before or alongside deployment of a new or substantially modified frontier model, a frontier developer would have to publish a transparency report with information such as supported languages and output modalities, intended uses and generally applicable restrictions or conditions. Large frontier developers would have additional report-summary requirements about catastrophic-risk assessments and third-party evaluators.

The bill’s catastrophic-risk line

The proposal defines catastrophic risk around foreseeable, material risks that a frontier model could materially contribute to death or serious injury to more than 50 people, or more than $1 billion in property damage or loss, from a single incident. The qualifying incident must involve expert-level assistance in creating or releasing a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon; conduct without meaningful human oversight, intervention or supervision that constitutes a cyberattack or would constitute murder, assault, extortion or theft if committed by a human; or evasion of the developer’s or user’s control.

For large frontier developers, HB 2829 would prohibit deployment when the required assessments, mitigation work and the developer’s framework show that deployment would create an unreasonable risk of crossing that harm threshold. It would also require summaries of internal-use catastrophic-risk assessments to be transmitted to the agency on a recurring schedule.

The bill separately defines “critical safety incidents.” A frontier developer would have to report a qualifying incident to the agency and Attorney General within 72 hours after learning facts sufficient to reasonably believe it occurred. If an incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury, the bill calls for disclosure within 24 hours to an appropriate authority, as required by law.

Enforcement, interoperability and employee reporting

HB 2829 would authorize the Attorney General to seek civil penalties, injunctive relief or declaratory relief. The bill would set maximum civil penalties of $1 million for a first violation and $3 million per subsequent violation for specified large-developer violations. It says it would not create a private right of action.

The proposal also includes a conditional interoperability route. A frontier developer could declare an intent to comply through a federal law, regulation or guidance document, but only after the agency designates materials it finds substantially equivalent or stricter for the relevant requirements and only to the extent the developer actually meets those designated federal standards. That is not a blanket federal-compliance exemption.

Its employee provisions would bar a frontier developer from preventing or retaliating against certain safety-related disclosures by covered employees. Large frontier developers would also have to provide an internal anonymous disclosure process for certain safety or compliance concerns.

Finally, the bill would make regulation of AI frontier models an exclusive Commonwealth power, barring political subdivisions from enacting or enforcing requirements that specifically regulate them.

What the October hearing does—and does not—show

The official committee archive confirms that a public hearing on mitigating risks from frontier AI models was held on October 19 and listed HB 2829 alongside HB 2800. It does not show a vote, recommendation, amendment or committee endorsement.

Without separately reviewing testimony, a transcript or other hearing materials, it would be premature to characterize what participants argued or what conclusions the committee reached.

For companies, HB 2829 is worth watching because it sketches a concrete state model for frontier-AI safety frameworks, audits, deployment decisions and incident reporting. But the immediate legal point is simpler: it remains proposed legislation. No Pennsylvania duty, deadline or penalty in HB 2829 is currently operative.