States Build Regulatory Interoperability into Frontier AI Laws

Although Congress has yet to enact a comprehensive AI regulatory framework, several states are already legislating with future federal regulation in mind. Recent frontier AI laws in California, New York, and Illinois each include interoperability provisions that permit frontier developers to satisfy certain state obligations by complying instead with qualifying federal standards, to the extent the federal requirements are substantially equivalent to, or more stringent than, the applicable state requirements.

These interoperability provisions create a pathway (without the need for amendments to the operative state legislation) for a developer’s adherence to future federal standards to satisfy key requirements of the state compliance regimes. In so doing, these clauses may offer a safety valve that reduces the likelihood these state regimes will be found to have been impliedly preempted by future federal legislation in this area.

As a policy matter, California, New York, and Illinois are attempting to balance a continued role for state oversight and state-specific standards with the possibility of future national standards and the federal interest in national uniformity. The mechanics of the interoperability provisions leave broad discretion for state officials to determine how to address overlap and tensions between the state and federal regimes. Each law authorizes a designated state agency to recognize qualifying federal laws, regulations, or guidance. If federal requirements are designated and determined by state authorities to qualify, developers may elect to comply with those requirements instead of corresponding state requirements.

What Requirements Will Interoperability Cover?

All three laws preserve state authority to determine which federal frameworks qualify and which state obligations may be satisfied through federal compliance. California and New York’s interoperability provisions are limited to equivalency for critical safety incident reporting. Illinois adopts a broader approach by permitting interoperability with respect to its frontier AI framework obligations and independent third-party audit requirements, as well as recognizing equivalent federal critical safety incident reporting requirements.

How the Interoperability Provisions Work

Although the details differ slightly, all three statutes follow the same basic structure:

• The State Identifies Qualifying Federal Standards
• The responsible state agency would identify federal laws, regulations, or guidance that qualifies for interoperability. Those federal requirements would generally have to impose requirements that are substantially equivalent to, or more stringent than, the corresponding state requirements.
• The Developer Elects to Use the Federal Standard
• A developer would have the option to elect to comply with the designated federal standard. To do so, the developer would file a declaration indicating that it intends to rely on the federal standard rather than the corresponding state requirements.
• Federal Compliance Satisfies State Requirements
• Once the election is made, the developer would be deemed compliant with the relevant state requirements so long as it complies with the designated federal framework. Failure to comply with the applicable federal standards would constitute a violation of state law.

Why This Matters Now

These provisions are notable in the context of the ongoing debate over the need for federal standards and the argument for federal preemption of state AI laws. California, Illinois, and New York have adopted a model that permits compliance with qualifying federal requirements while preserving state oversight and discretion. If Congress ultimately enacts a comprehensive AI framework, or if federal agencies establish comparable regulatory requirements, these provisions could reduce duplicative regulatory obligations for covered frontier developers. Addressing interoperability in state regulations may also inform congressional deliberations over whether to include an express preemption clause in any federal legislation. In the absence of express federal preemption, these provisions give state regulators a way to ease tensions and overlapping burdens between state requirements and future federal regulatory mandates, reducing the case for implied federal preemption.

Maya Vishwanath, an AI Analyst at Morrison Foerster, contributed to this alert.