# California SI Safety Laws and Rules | Control Map > How California governs SI safety: 3 measures tracked on the Control Map, with status, dates, requirements, penalties and every source linked. Source: https://enterrsi.si/control-map/california/ Updated: 2026-11-08 1. [Home](https://enterrsi.si/) 2. [Control Map](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/) 3. [United States](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/us/) 4. California Control Map · US state · updated Nov 8, 2026 # SI safety in California California was the first state with a statute aimed at frontier SI developers: SB 53 has required published safety frameworks, transparency reports and incident reporting since January 1, 2026. In September 2026 the state added SB 813, a voluntary system for designating independent verification organizations, and Executive Order N-9-26, which asks for recommendations by November 16, 2026 on onsite lab audits, a frontier model kill switch and reporting of loss of control incidents. Measures : 3 Strongest : In force In force : 2 Next date : Nov 16, 2026 The measures ## 3 measures, status and dates Every SI safety measure the Control Map tracks for California, with what it requires, its penalties and its sources. In force ### SB 53 Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 53, Chapter 138, Statutes of 2025) Key dates Introduced : Jan 7, 2025 Signed or adopted : Sep 29, 2025 Effective : Jan 1, 2026 Next step · in 54 days : January 1, 2027 Scope Developers that train frontier models above 10^26 operations; large frontier developers, with over $500 million in annual revenue, carry the heaviest duties. Penalties Civil penalties of up to $1 million per violation, enforced only by the California Attorney General. What it requires - Large developers publish a frontier SI framework, review it yearly and post material changes within 30 days - Publish a transparency report before deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model - Report critical safety incidents to Cal OES within 15 days, or within 24 hours if there is imminent risk of death or serious injury - Large developers send Cal OES summaries of internal catastrophic risk assessments every three months - Protect whistleblowers, with an anonymous internal reporting channel at large developers Sources 1. [SB 53: Artificial intelligence models: large developers](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb53) CalMatters Digital Democracy 2. [California SB 53: Frontier AI Law Explained](https://casrai.org/guides/california-sb-53-frontier-ai-transparency-act) CASRAI · Sep 19, 2026 3. [OpenAI wants California to toughen the AI law it once fought](https://thenextweb.com/news/openai-sb-53-california-ai-safety-law-amendments) The Next Web · Aug 24, 2026 Passed, not yet in force ### SB 813 SB 813, Independent verification organizations (Chapter 179, Statutes of 2026) Key dates Introduced : Feb 21, 2025 Signed or adopted : Sep 9, 2026 Effective : Jan 1, 2027 Next step · in 174 days : May 1, 2027 Scope SI auditors seeking state designation as independent verification organizations; use of them by developers is voluntary. Penalties No penalties: this measure has no binding enforcement. What it requires - Government Operations Agency sets application, suspension and qualification criteria by January 1, 2028 - Agency convenes working groups that include engineers and SI safety experts - Designated organizations file annual reports with the agency and the Legislature - No one is required to use an organization or be audited; an audit is relevant but not conclusive in harm lawsuits Sources 1. [SB 813: Independent verification organizations](https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb813) CalMatters Digital Democracy 2. [California Finalizes Next Wave of State AI and Privacy Regulation](https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/blogs/wilmerhale-privacy-and-cybersecurity-law/20261002-california-finalizes-next-wave-of-state-ai-and-privacy-regulation) WilmerHale · Oct 5, 2026 In force ### EO N-9-26 Executive Order N-9-26 Key dates Introduced : n/a Signed or adopted : Sep 18, 2026 Effective : Sep 18, 2026 Next step · in 8 days : November 16, 2026 Scope California state agencies; the recommendations are not binding and any new duties for frontier SI developers would need legislation. Penalties No penalties: this measure has no binding enforcement. What it requires - Recommend periodic onsite audits by independent verification organizations inside large frontier developers - Recommend independent verification of safety frameworks, transparency reports and risk assessments - Recommend a kill switch for frontier models whose effectiveness is verified on an ongoing basis - Recommend expanding critical safety incident reporting to loss of control incidents - Post criteria for independent verification organizations by May 1, 2027 Sources 1. [Newsom sets November 16 deadline to study frontier AI kill switch](https://ppc.land/newsom-sets-november-16-deadline-to-study-frontier-ai-kill-switch/) PPC Land · Sep 20, 2026 2. [California AI Governance: What Executive Order N-9-26 Means](https://www.radarfirst.com/blog/california-ai-governance-independent-verification/) RadarFirst · Sep 23, 2026 3. [Newsom orders California agencies to develop new AI safety plans after rejecting tougher law](https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/09/ai-rules-newsom-state-directive/) CalMatters · Sep 18, 2026 The Control Map ## Every other jurisdiction 43 measures in 22 jurisdictions. See them all on the [world map](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/). [European Union **3**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/european-union/)[United States (federal) **6**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/us/)[New York **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/new-york/)[Illinois **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/illinois/)[Colorado **2**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/colorado/)[Texas **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/texas/)[China **4**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/china/)[United Kingdom **2**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/united-kingdom/)[Japan **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/japan/)[South Korea **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/south-korea/)[Canada **2**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/canada/)[Brazil **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/brazil/)[India **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/india/)[Australia **3**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/australia/)[Singapore **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/singapore/)[Council of Europe **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/council-of-europe/)[United Nations **2**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/united-nations/)[G7 **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/g7/)[International summit series **4**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/international-summits/)[United States and China (bilateral) **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/us-china/)[Global civil society **1**](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/global-civil-society/) Enter RSI ## Laws on one side, incidents on the other The Rogue Incident Database logs what SI systems have actually done. The RSI Clock weighs both. [Back to the map](https://enterrsi.si/control-map/) [Incident Database](https://enterrsi.si/incidents/) [The RSI Clock](https://enterrsi.si/clock/)