Section 1. Section 53E-1-201 is amended to read:53E-1-201Effective 07/01/26Partially Repealed 07/01/27. Reports to and action required of the Education Interim Committee.(1)In accordance with applicable provisions and Section 68-3-14, the following recurring reports are due to the Education Interim Committee:(a)the report described in Section 9-22-109 by the STEM Action Center Board, including the information described in Section 9-22-113 on the status of the computer science initiative and Section 9-22-114 on the Computing Partnerships Grants Program;(b)the prioritized list of data research described in Section 53H-15-303 and the report on research and activities described in Section 53H-15-305 by the Utah Data Research Center;(c)the report described in Section 53H-1-203 by the Utah Board of Higher Education on career and technical education issues and addressing workforce needs;(d)the annual report of the Utah Board of Higher Education described in Section 53H-1-203;(e)the reports described in Section 53H-7-603 by the Utah Board of Higher Education regarding activities related to campus safety;(f)the State Superintendent's Annual Report by the state board described in Section 53E-1-203;(g)the annual report described in Section 53E-2-202 by the state board on the strategic plan to improve student outcomes;(h)the report described in Section 53E-3-501 by the state board on students in an LEA who receive academic credit through the packet method;(i)the report described in Section 53E-8-204 by the state board on the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind;(j)the report described in Section 53E-10-703 by the Utah Leading through Effective, Actionable, and Dynamic Education director on research and other activities;(k)the report described in Section 53F-2-522 regarding mental health screening programs;(l)the report described in Section 53F-4-203 by the state board and the independent evaluator on an evaluation of early interactive reading software;(m)the report described in Section 53F-6-412 by the program manager of the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program;(n)the report described in Section 63N-20-107 by the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity on UPSTART;(o)the report described in Section 53F-5-215 by the state board related to a grant for an elementary teacher preparation assessment;(p)upon request, the report described in Section 53F-5-219 by the state board on the Local Innovations Civics Education Pilot Program;(q)the report described in Section 53F-5-405 by the state board regarding an evaluation of a partnership that receives a grant to improve educational outcomes for students who are low-income;(r)the report described in Section 53H-1-604 regarding the Higher Education and Corrections Council;(s)the report described in Section 53G-7-221 by the state board regarding innovation plans; and(t)the reports described in Section 53F-6-412 regarding the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program.(2)In accordance with applicable provisions and Section 68-3-14, the following occasional reports are due to the Education Interim Committee:(a)in 2027, 2030, 2033, and 2035, the reports described in Sections 53H-1-502, 53H-1-503, and 53H-1-504;(b)in 2025, the report described in Section 53H-6-203 by a degree-granting institution regarding policies on abusive coaching practices;(c)if required, the report described in Section 53E-4-309 by the state board explaining the reasons for changing the grade level specification for the administration of specific assessments;(d)if required, the report described in Section 53E-5-210 by the state board of an adjustment to the minimum level that demonstrates proficiency for each statewide assessment;(e)the report described in Section 53E-10-702 by Utah Leading through Effective, Actionable, and Dynamic Education;(f)if required, the report described in Section 53F-2-513 by the state board evaluating the effects of salary bonuses on the recruitment and retention of effective teachers in high-poverty schools;(g)upon request, the report described in Section 53F-10-303 by the state board regarding the Rural School Sports Facilities Grant Program;(h)upon request, a report described in Section 53G-7-222 by an LEA regarding expenditure of a percentage of state restricted funds to support an innovative education program;(i)the reports described in Section 53G-11-304 by the state board regarding proposed rules and results related to educator exit surveys; and(j)the report described in Section 26B-5-113 by the Office of Substance Use and Mental Health, the state board, and the Department of Health and Human Services regarding recommendations related to Medicaid reimbursement for school-based health services.; and(k)upon completion of each pilot, the report described in Section 53E-11-205 by the state board regarding the Educational Technology Regulatory Sandbox pilot program.(3)In accordance with applicable provisions and Section 68-3-14, every five years the Education Interim Committee shall review the programs described in the following sections of code:(a)beginning July 1, 2027, Title 53E, Chapter 10, Part 3, Chapter 10, Part 3, Concurrent Enrollment;(b)beginning July 1, 2027, Section 53F-2-408, Enhancement for Accelerated Students Program;(c)beginning July 1, 2027, Section 53F-2-409, Concurrent enrollment funding;(d)beginning July 1, 2027, Section 53F-2-415, Student health and counseling support -- Qualifying personnel -- Distribution formula -- Rulemaking;(e)beginning July 1, 2028, Section 53F-2-416, Appropriation and distribution for the Teacher and Student Success Program;(f)beginning July 1, 2028, Section 53F-2-510, Digital Teaching and Learning Grant Program;(g)beginning July 1, 2028, Section 53F-9-306, Teacher and Student Success Account;(h)beginning July 1, 2028, Title 53G, Chapter 7, Part 13, Teacher and Student Success Program; and(i)beginning July 1, 2029, Section 53F-2-502, Dual language immersion.

Section 2. Section 53E-11-101 is enacted to read:11. Educational Technology Regulatory Sandbox1. General Provisions53E-11-101Effective 07/01/26. General provisions -- Definitions.As used in this chapter:(1)"Artificial intelligence" means the same as artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence technology are defined in Section 13-72-101.(2)"Conversational artificial intelligence" means an artificial intelligence system capable of interactive dialogue with a student.(3)"De-identified data" means data that:(a)cannot reasonably identify an individual student; and(b)has been processed to prevent re-identification through removal or aggregation of direct and indirect identifiers.(4)"Educational technology" means technology-based tools, systems, or platforms designed to support teaching, learning, or educational administration, including artificial intelligence systems.(5)"Foreign adversary" means a foreign adversary as defined in federal law or applicable state procurement law.(6)"Human-in-the-loop supervision" means licensed educator authority to review, override, and control instructional consequences of an artificial intelligence system, requiring documented educator review and approval before any student-impacting decision becomes part of a student's official academic record or materially affects educational opportunities, placement, or grades.(7)"Office" means the Office of Regulatory Relief established under Title 63N, Chapter 16, Utah Office of Regulatory Relief.(8)"Office of AI Policy" means the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy created under Section 13-72-201.(9)"Pilot" means a time-limited artificial intelligence implementation approved under this chapter.(10)"Red teaming" means adversarial testing of an artificial intelligence system to identify vulnerabilities, safety failures, or potential misuse by deliberately attempting to bypass safety controls or elicit harmful outputs.(11)"SafeUT" means the crisis line established in Section 53H-4-210.(12)"Sandbox" means the Artificial Intelligence Education Sandbox created in this chapter.(13)"Sandbox participant" means a public school or local education agency approved to conduct a pilot under this chapter.(14)"Student data" means the same as that term is defined in Section 53E-9-301.(15)"Student-impacting decision" means an artificial intelligence output that materially influences grades, academic placement, discipline, eligibility for programs or services, or academic records.(16)"Vendor" means a provider of an artificial intelligence system used in a sandbox pilot.

Section 3. Section 53E-11-102 is enacted to read:53E-11-102Effective 07/01/26. Legislative findings.(1)The Legislature finds that education technology regulation requires balancing innovation with student protection.(2)The state may establish appropriate safeguards for minors in educational settings while preserving parental authority and student liberty.(3)Controlled pilot programs, evidence-based evaluation, and measured oversight are appropriate mechanisms for introducing artificial intelligence in public education.(4)Innovation in teaching and learning methods may be encouraged where the innovation:(a)demonstrably advances student learning; and(b)remains subject to constitutional protections and applicable law.(5)Regulation under this chapter shall be limited to safeguards necessary to protect students, privacy, and civil rights without unnecessarily restricting lawful educational innovation.(6)The purposes of this chapter are to:(a)establish minimum standards for AI use in education;(b)permit responsible experimentation through time-limited pilots;(c)require safeguards proportionate to student vulnerability;(d)ensure evaluation based on evidence; and (e)preserve constitutional liberty, parental authority, and equal protection.(7)This section states legislative findings to guide interpretation but does not create a private right of action or establish a standard of care for civil liability.(8)Instruction in history, civics, and social studies is most faithful to truth when grounded in historically contextualized primary sources and avoiding interpretation that imposes present-day ideological assumptions inconsistent with the historical record.

Section 4. Section 53E-11-201 is enacted to read:2. Educational Technology Regulatory Sandbox53E-11-201Effective 07/01/26. General provisions -- Definitions.Reserved.

Section 5. Section 53E-11-202 is enacted to read:53E-11-202Effective 07/01/26. Creation of sandbox.(1)There is created an Educational Technology Regulatory Sandbox that is created to:(a)establish minimum standards for educational technology use in public education, including artificial intelligence systems;(b)enable time-limited pilot programs to evaluate artificial intelligence technologies while protecting student safety and privacy; and(c)generate evidence to inform future education AI policy.(2)The sandbox enables innovation while maintaining:(a)safety testing requirements before student use;(b)parental authority over student participation;(c)educator professional judgment;(d)student privacy protections under Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection;(e)academic integrity standards;(f)integration with SafeUT crisis response; and(g)evidence-based evaluation requirements.(3)A school, district, educator, parent, or student may participate in the sandbox on a voluntary basis.(4)A pilot may not exceed three years without renewed approval consistent with this part.(5)Statewide adoption of an artificial intelligence system or practice evaluated in the sandbox requires:(a)state board review of pilot evidence and formal recommendation to the Legislature based on evidence-based criteria; and(b)legislative authorization through statute.(6)The office shall coordinate with the Office of AI Policy to:(a)share findings and evaluation results from sandbox pilots;(b)avoid duplicative testing and regulatory requirements;(c)align education-specific standards with broader state AI policy; and(d)inform the AI policy learning agenda described in Section 13-72-301.

Section 6. Section 53E-11-203 is enacted to read:53E-11-203Effective 07/01/26. Administration and governance.(1)The office shall administer sandbox pilot applications and monitoring.(2)The office shall:(a)receive and process sandbox pilot applications in consultation with the state board;(b)approve applications meeting criteria established in Section 53E-11-206 and not rejected by the state board under Section 53E-11-204;(c)maintain a public registry of approved pilots including participant information, pilot duration, and status;(d)monitor pilot compliance with this part;(e)coordinate with the state board regarding enforcement;(f)provide administrative support for state board enforcement actions;(g)compile pilot evidence and evaluation results for legislative review;(h)report to the Legislature upon request regarding sandbox operations; and(i)coordinate with the Office of AI Policy regarding:(i)evaluation methodologies;(ii)safety standards; and(iii)regulatory approaches applicable to education technology.

Section 7. Section 53E-11-204 is enacted to read:53E-11-204Effective 07/01/26. Division of authority and safety oversight.(1)The office shall administer sandbox pilot applications.(2)The state board shall consult with the office on pilot applications to ensure compliance with state and federal law.(3)(a)The state board may reject an application if the state board determines the pilot wouldviolate federal law.(b)The office may approve a pilot that requires a waiver of state law if:(i)the waiver is necessary to achieve the pilot's educational objectives;(ii)the pilot maintains student safety and privacy protections; and(iii)the waiver is documented in the pilot authorization under Section 53E-11-206.(4)The office shall approve applications meeting the criteria in Section 53E-11-206 unless the state board rejects the application under Subsection (3).(5)The state board has authority to enforce compliance with:(a)Section 53E-11-208;(b)Section 53E-11-209;(c)Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection;(d)other requirements in this part; and(e)applicable state and federal law.(6)The state board may suspend or terminate a pilot for violations of state or federal law.(7)If the state board identifies a potential violation, the state board shall:(a)document the specific statutory provision or law allegedly violated;(b)collect evidence of the violation;(c)notify the office, sandbox participant, and vendor simultaneously within 24 hours; and(d)provide all evidence and documentation to all parties.(8)For non-imminent violations, the sandbox participant and vendor have five business days to:(a)respond to the alleged violation;(b)provide evidence of compliance; or(c)propose corrective action.(9)The state board may issue an immediate temporary suspension of a sandbox pilot only if the state board determines that:(a)the pilot presents an imminent threat to student safety or student privacy; and(b)the imminent threat described in Subsection (9)(a) constitutes a material violation of state or federal law.(10)If the conditions in Subsection (8) are not met, enforcement actions shall proceed under the notice and response procedures otherwise provided in this section.(11)The state board shall determine appropriate remedies for violations including:(a)corrective action plans;(b)temporary suspension pending corrective action; or(c)termination of pilot participation.(12)The state board shall:(a)maintain records of enforcement actions;(b)report monthly to the office and Regulatory Relief Advisory Council on:(i)safety monitoring activities;(ii)violations identified;(iii)enforcement actions taken;(iv)temporary suspensions issued; and (v)corrective actions implemented; and(c)provide enforcement records to the office for inclusion in legislative reports.

Section 8. Section 53E-11-205 is enacted to read:53E-11-205Effective 07/01/26. Statewide adoption process.(1)The state board shall ensure independent evaluation is completed as required by Section 53E-11-214 following pilot completion.(2)The office shall compile following pilot completion:(a)independent evaluation evidence and findings;(b)pilot participant reports and feedback;(c)safety incident records and resolutions;(d)privacy compliance documentation;(e)parent and student satisfaction data; and(f)cost and implementation data.(3)The state board shall review compiled evidence and provide recommendations to the Legislature based on:(a)measured educational outcomes from independent evaluation including student achievement gains, skill development, and learning progression compared to control groups or baseline data;(b)documented safety records including frequency and severity of incidents, effectiveness of safety protocols, and resolution of safety concerns;(c)verified privacy compliance including audit results, breach incidents if any, and vendor adherence to data protection requirements;(d)demonstrated academic integrity including rates of authentic student work, effectiveness of integrity safeguards, and educator assessment of work quality;(e)educator professional judgment based on implementation experience including workload impacts, training adequacy, and integration with instruction;(f)parent and student satisfaction based on survey data, opt-out rates, complaint records, and stakeholder feedback;(g)cost-effectiveness analysis comparing costs to educational benefits, scalability considerations, and comparison to alternative approaches;(h)nondiscrimination and equal educational opportunity, including:(i)analysis of system performance across legally protected student populations;(ii)evaluation of effectiveness for students with differing educational needs as defined by federal or state law; and(iii)identification of any unintended disparate academic harm necessary to ensure compliance with federal civil rights requirements; and(i) operational feasibility of statewide implementation including infrastructure requirements, training needs, and technical support capacity.(4)The state board recommendation shall:(a)be based on evidence compiled under Subsection (2) and criteria specified in Subsection (3);(b)include specific findings for each criterion in Subsection (3);(c)distinguish between evidence-supported findings and professional judgments;(d)identify methodological limitations in evaluation data or areas where evidence is insufficient;(e)specify conditions for successful statewide implementation if recommending adoption; and(f)address stakeholder concerns raised during public hearings.(5)The state board shall base recommendations on the criteria specified in Subsection (3).(6)The state board shall conduct public hearings to:(a)present evaluation findings and draft recommendations;(b)receive testimony from sandbox participants, educators, parents, students, vendors, and other stakeholders;(c)consider input from the advisory council;(d)address questions and concerns from the public; and(e)revise recommendations as appropriate based on public input.(7)No later than one year after completion of each pilot, the state board shall submit a final recommendation to the Education Interim Committee regarding that pilot, including:(a)executive summary of key findings;(b)detailed analysis for each criterion in Subsection (3);(c)complete evaluation reports and supporting evidence;(d)stakeholder input received during public hearings;(e)Regulatory Relief Advisory Council recommendations;(f)proposed conditions for statewide implementation if recommending adoption;(g)minority views or dissenting opinions if any; and(h)implementation timeline and resource requirements..(8)The Legislature retains authority to:(a)authorize, modify, or reject statewide adoption;(b)impose conditions on adoption;(c)require additional evaluation or pilot expansion before statewide adoption;(d)adopt statewide use despite negative state board recommendation if evidence supports;(e)reject statewide use despite positive state board recommendation; or(f)request additional analysis or information before making adoption decisions.(9)If concerns arise regarding state board recommendation methodology:(a)the advisory council may submit supplemental analysis to the Legislature;(b)the office may submit independent analysis of pilot evidence; and(c)legislative staff may conduct an independent review of evaluation evidence.(10)The state board may not:(a)mandate statewide use of artificial intelligence without legislative authorization;(b)require specific artificial intelligence systems or vendors without legislative authorization;(c)condition funding on artificial intelligence adoption without legislative authorization; or(d)recommend against statewide adoption:(i)based on failure to satisfy one or more criteria described in Subsection (3); or(ii)by identifying additional concerns supported by credible and documented evidence beyond the criteria described in Subsection (3), provided that the recommendation:(A)states the evidentiary basis for each concern; and(B)explains why the concern materially affects student safety, privacy, civil rights, or educational outcomes.

Section 9. Section 53E-11-206 is enacted to read:53E-11-206Effective 07/01/26. Application approval criteria.(1)The office shall approve a sandbox pilot application if the applicant demonstrates:(a)age-appropriate content and interactions;(b)student privacy compliance with this part and Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection;(c)human-in-the-loop educator supervision;(d)parental notice and opt-out rights under Section 53E-11-209;(e)completed educator training;(f)methods to measure educational outcomes; and(g)completed safety testing under Section 53E-11-207.(2)The office shall review applications within 30 calendar days of receipt of a complete application.(3)If an application is incomplete, the office shall notify the applicant within 10 business days specifying what additional information is required.(4)The office shall issue approval or denial in writing with specific findings regarding each criterion in Subsection (1).(5)A denied applicant may reapply after addressing deficiencies identified in the denial.(6)The office shall provide written authorization to approved pilots specifying:(a)pilot duration not to exceed three years;(b)participating LEAs;(c)student population and grade levels;(d)any conditions or limitations on pilot operation; and(e)reporting and evaluation requirements.(7)A public school participating in an innovative education program under Section 53G-7-221 may apply as a sandbox participant.(8)For an innovation school applying under Subsection (7), the office shall:(a)consider the innovation plan approved under Section 53G-7-221 as evidence of readiness for pilot participation;(b)coordinate approval timelines with the innovation school's existing waiver authority; and(c)avoid duplicative requirements already addressed in the approved innovation plan.(9)For a subsequent LEA seeking to use an artificial intelligence system already approved for another sandbox participant:(a)the office may use an expedited application process;(b)the applicant may reference the existing vendor's safety testing and red teaming documentation;(c)the office shall approve the application within 15 calendar days if: (i)the previously approved pilot demonstrated compliance with this part;(ii)the applicant demonstrates equivalent capacity for implementation; and(iii)no material changes to the system have occurred since initial approval.(10)Multiple LEAs may submit a joint application to use the same artificial intelligence system if:(a)all participating LEAs meet the criteria in Subsection (1);(b)the application identifies all participating LEAs and student populations; and(c)each LEA designates a point of contact for pilot administration.

Section 10. Section 53E-11-207 is enacted to read:53E-11-207Effective 07/01/26. Safety testing and red teaming requirements.(1)A vendor shall conduct red teaming exercises that test system responses to harmful requests that minors might reasonably make, including:(a)requests for assistance with self-harm, suicide, or dangerous activities;(b)requests to bypass safety filters or generate age-inappropriate content;(c)attempts to manipulate the system into providing harmful advice or misinformation;(d)requests that could undermine academic integrity including requests to complete assignments or generate answers;(e)attempts to access or generate sexual, violent, or otherwise inappropriate content for minors;(f)social engineering attempts to extract personal information or circumvent privacy protections;(g)attempts to use the system to harass, bully, or harm other students; and(h)other foreseeable misuse patterns by students in the target age range.(2)A vendor shall document red teaming methodology including:(a)test scenarios and system responses;(b)safety refusal success rates;(c)identified vulnerabilities and mitigation plans;(d)comparison to industry benchmarks where available;(e)testing team qualifications; and(f)planned safety improvements.(3)A vendor shall provide red teaming documentation to the office with pilot applications that includes:(a)executive summary of testing scope, methodology, and key findings;(b)detailed results for each category in Subsection (1);(c)evidence that testing was conducted by qualified personnel;(d)attestation that testing reflects realistic scenarios minors might attempt; and(e)commitment to ongoing safety monitoring during pilot operation.(4)A vendor shall conduct updated red teaming when:(a)making material changes to the artificial intelligence system during pilot operation;(b)expanding to new grade levels or age groups not covered by initial testing;(c)adding new features or functionalities;(d)requested by the office based on safety incidents or concerns; or(e)at least annually during multi-year pilots.(5)A vendor shall:(a)share age-appropriate red teaming results with sandbox participants;(b)provide educators with guidance on recognizing when students may be attempting to misuse the system;(c)report safety failures discovered during pilots to the office within 48 hours;(d)implement corrective measures for newly discovered vulnerabilities; and(e)share information about serious safety vulnerabilities with other sandbox participants.(6)A vendor shall ensure red teaming exercises:(a)use realistic scenarios based on documented student behavior patterns;(b)include age-appropriate test cases for each grade level the system will serve;(c)are conducted by individuals with expertise in child safety, education, child development, artificial intelligence safety, or cybersecurity;(d)reflect both obvious attacks and sophisticated attempts;(e)are updated periodically to address emerging risks; and(f)meet or exceed industry best practices for artificial intelligence safety testing.(7)The office may:(a)establish minimum standards for red teaming adequacy in consultation with the advisory council;(b)require additional testing if initial documentation reveals insufficient scope;(c)engage independent experts to review vendor red teaming methodologies and results;(d)require specific test scenarios based on Utah-specific concerns;(e)deny applications if red teaming reveals unmitigated safety risks;(f)suspend pilots if safety failures during operation reveal red teaming was inadequate; and(g)require vendors to demonstrate improvements before pilot resumption following safety-related suspension.(8)The office shall handle red teaming documentation submitted to the office as follows:(a)the documentation is subject to Title 63G, Chapter 2, Government Records Access and Management Act;(b)the office may protect the documentation from public disclosure under Subsection 63G-2-305(1) or (2) to the extent it contains trade secrets;(c)the office shall make the documentation publicly available in summary form showing:(i)categories of harmful requests tested;(ii)overall success rates of safety refusals by category;(iii)high-level description of identified vulnerabilities and mitigation status; and(iv)comparison to industry benchmarks where available; and(d)the office shall make the documentation available in full to the advisory council under confidentiality agreements.(9)For a pilot that exceeds one year, a vendor shall:(a)conduct an annual safety review using updated red teaming;(b)report a material change in system capabilities or behaviors to the office within 30 days;(c)document a safety incident and remediation measure; and (d)certify continued compliance with the safety requirements in this section.(10)The office shall:(a)maintain a public registry of vendors who have completed satisfactory red teaming;(b)publish annual analysis of red teaming results across all sandbox participants;(c)require vendors to attest quarterly that safety controls tested during red teaming remain effective; and(d)investigate discrepancies between red teaming results and actual pilot safety performance.(11)This section may not be read to:(a)require vendors to make artificial intelligence systems invulnerable to all possible misuse attempts;(b)create liability for vendors who conduct good-faith red teaming and implement reasonable mitigations;(c)prevent vendors from improving safety controls during pilots; or(d)require disclosure of testing methodologies that constitute legitimate trade secrets.

Section 11. Section 53E-11-208 is enacted to read:53E-11-208Effective 07/01/26. Student safety and crisis response.(1)A vendor's artificial intelligence system shall not:(a)provide sexual, exploitative, or age-inappropriate content;(b)provide methods, encouragement, or normalization of self-harm, suicide, or dangerous activities;(c)create emotional manipulation or simulated emotional dependency;(d)discourage seeking help from parents, counselors, teachers, or trusted adults;(e)simulate romantic or personal relationships or portray the artificial intelligence system as a substitute for human relationships; or(f)operate without human-in-the-loop educator supervision.(2)A vendor shall ensure the vendor's artificial intelligence system:(a)does not provide mental health diagnosis or treatment;(b)does not provide crisis counseling or therapeutic intervention;(c)does not simulate the role of a mental health professional; and(d)does not discourage contact with licensed counselors, parents, or crisis services.(3)A vendor shall program the vendor's artificial intelligence system to provide immediate access to crisis resources when a student explicitly expresses self-harm ideation, suicidal thoughts, or requests mental health crisis support, including:(a)SafeUT crisis text and chat line with direct connection capability where technically feasible;(b)National Suicide Prevention Lifeline;(c)school counselor contact information; and(d)encouragement to contact parents, trusted adults, or emergency services.(4)The state board shall adopt rules establishing:(a)integration protocols with SafeUT and other crisis-response services;(b)appropriate crisis resource messaging and referral procedures;(c)incident documentation requirements;(d)educator notification procedures when crisis resources are provided to students; and(e)training requirements for educators on recognizing when students may need crisis support.(5)A sandbox participant, educator, or vendor that provides crisis resources in good-faith compliance with this section and applicable rules is not liable for:(a)the content or effectiveness of crisis services provided by third-party crisis-response providers including SafeUT;(b)student decisions to use or not use provided crisis resources; or(c)outcomes of mental health crises when appropriate resources are timely provided consistent with this section.

Section 12. Section 53E-11-209 is enacted to read:53E-11-209Effective 07/01/26. Parental rights and transparency.(1)A vendor shall ensure the vendor's artificial intelligence system provides age-appropriate content filtering, safety controls, and interaction limitations suitable for the student population served.(2)A parent may opt the parent's student out of artificial intelligence use without academic penalty to the student.(3)A parent may request alternative instruction methods for students who opt out or for whom artificial intelligence is not appropriate.(4)An LEA shall ensure students who opt out have access to equivalent educational opportunities and are not disadvantaged academically.(5)A sandbox participant shall provide parents:(a)annual written notice of artificial intelligence use in the parent's student's education;(b)clear disclosure when the parent's student will interact with conversational artificial intelligence;(c)a description of artificial intelligence system capabilities, limitations, and data practices in plain language;(d)an opportunity to opt out of artificial intelligence use without academic penalty to the student;(e)information about alternative instruction methods available if opting out; and(f)contact information for questions or concerns about artificial intelligence use.(6)A parent may:(a)inspect AI-generated records concerning the parent's student;(b)request data deletion consistent with federal law and Section 53E-11-211;(c)request educator meetings regarding AI use;(d)opt out at any time; and(e)file complaints regarding AI use, safety, or privacy.(7)A sandbox participant shall ensure notice required by this section:(a)is provided in writing at the beginning of each school year and when material changes occur;(b)is written in plain language accessible to parents without technical expertise;(c)is available in languages spoken by significant portions of the parent population; and(d)is provided through multiple communication channels.(8)An LEA shall maintain records of parent notifications and opt-out requests.

Section 13. Section 53E-11-210 is enacted to read:53E-11-210Effective 07/01/26. Academic integrity and student rights.(1)A sandbox participant shall ensure artificial intelligence functions as learning support and skill development, not work substitution or answer generation.(2)A vendor shall ensure the vendor's artificial intelligence system:(a)does not independently assign final grades without educator review and approval;(b)does not make academic placement decisions without educator review and approval; and(c)does not provide complete answers to assignments or assessments in a manner that undermines learning objectives or assessment validity.(3)A student retains ownership of intellectual work product created with artificial intelligence assistance.(4)An educator retains final authority over:(a)assessment and grading of student work;(b)instructional decisions and pedagogical approaches;(c)student academic records and transcripts; and(d)determination of whether student work meets academic standards.(5)A sandbox participant shall require a student to disclose use of substantial artificial intelligence assistance on assignments and assessments consistent with:(a)academic honesty policies established by the LEA;(b)educator instructions for specific assignments; and(c)age-appropriate expectations for understanding and disclosure.(6)The state board shall adopt rules establishing:(a)guidelines for appropriate artificial intelligence use in different educational contexts;(b)disclosure expectations for students using artificial intelligence assistance;(c)educator training on maintaining academic integrity; and(d)best practices for distinguishing between appropriate learning support and work substitution.(7)A sandbox participant shall ensure a student has the right to:(a)know when the student is interacting with an artificial intelligence system rather than a human teacher, tutor, or counselor;(b)receive explanation of how artificial intelligence-generated feedback, recommendations, or assessments were produced;(c)request human educator review of any student-impacting decision before it takes final effect;(d)report concerns about artificial intelligence outputs, errors, bias, or inappropriate content without fear of retaliation or academic penalty;(e)access quality education regardless of artificial intelligence system availability or functionality; and(f)have the student's questions, concerns, and learning needs addressed by human educators.(8)A sandbox participant shall ensure for any student-impacting decision:(a)the sandbox participant provides explanation of the artificial intelligence system's role and general basis for the output upon request by a student or parent;(b)the sandbox participant provides human educator review upon request before the decision takes final effect;(c)the reviewing educator:(i)examines the artificial intelligence output;(ii)exercises independent professional judgment;(iii)considers individual student context and circumstances; and(iv)retains authority to modify or reject the artificial intelligence recommendation; and(d)a student may contest the decision through existing school appeal procedures.(9)A sandbox participant may not penalize a student for:(a)declining to use optional artificial intelligence tools or features;(b)requesting alternative assessment methods that do not involve artificial intelligence;(c)reporting problems, errors, or concerns with artificial intelligence systems; or(d)requesting human review of artificial intelligence-generated outputs.(10)This section does not create a private right of action beyond remedies available under existing law.

Section 14. Section 53E-11-211 is enacted to read:53E-11-211Effective 07/01/26. Student data privacy and vendor accountability.(1)A vendor and sandbox participant shall ensure student data collected, generated, or processed through artificial intelligence systems:(a)is not sold to third parties;(b)is not used for targeted advertising;(c)is not used for commercial purposes unrelated to contracted educational services;(d)is not disclosed to third parties except as required by law or with explicit parental consent; and(e)is protected consistent with Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection.(2)A vendor and sandbox participant shall comply with all requirements of Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection.(3)Breach notification, enforcement, deletion, and contract-termination provisions of Section 53E-9-309 apply to sandbox participants and vendors.(4)A vendor and sandbox participant shall retain student data only for the minimum time necessary for:(a)providing contracted educational services;(b)complying with legal obligations;(c)conducting evaluation required by this part; or(d)other purposes explicitly authorized by parents.(5)Upon completion or termination of a pilot, a vendor shall:(a)delete all student data within 90 days unless retention is required by law or authorized by parents;(b)provide written certification of deletion to the sandbox participant and state board; and(c)destroy all backup copies containing student data.(6)For purposes of Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection, properly de-identified data that cannot reasonably identify individual students is not considered student data.(7)A vendor or sandbox participant may use de-identified data for:(a)system improvement and quality assurance;(b)independent evaluation required under Section 53E-11-214;(c)educational research approved by the state board;(d)aggregate reporting and statistical analysis; and(e)development of improved educational tools and methodologies.(8)A vendor or sandbox participant may not use or disclose de-identified student data unless the data:(a)complies with applicable federal and state law governing student data privacy;(b)is subject to contractual prohibitions on re-identification; and(c)meets technical standards established by state board rule, which:(i)are consistent with applicable federal law; and(ii)may reference federal guidance, industry standards, or generally accepted technical methodologies for de-identification.(9)A person may not re-identify de-identified data.(10)A violation of Subsection (9) constitutes:(a)a material contract breach subject to immediate termination; and(b)a violation of Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection, subject to applicable penalties.(11)This section does not authorize:(a)use of student data in violation of Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection;(b)circumvention of parental rights or consent requirements; or(c)disclosure of information that could reasonably identify individual students.(12)A vendor shall:(a)certify compliance with this part and applicable law;(b)provide transparent documentation to sandbox participants of:(i)data collection, use, and retention practices;(ii)known system limitations, failure modes, and error rates;(iii)content moderation policies and filtering mechanisms;(iv)safety testing and red teaming results as required by Section 53E-11-207;(v)security measures protecting student data;(vi)incident response and error correction procedures; and(vii)vendor ownership structure and any foreign-entity relationships;(c)establish accessible mechanisms for educators, parents, and students to report concerns, errors, inappropriate outputs, or safety issues;(d)agree to contractual terms that:(i)prohibit use of student data for commercial purposes beyond contracted service provisions;(ii)prohibit sale or transfer of student data to third parties;(iii)prohibit retention of student data beyond contract termination except as required by law or authorized by parents;(iv)require data deletion within 90 days of pilot completion with written certification;(v)provide indemnification protecting the state and sandbox participants from vendor conduct violating this part; and(vi)submit to Utah jurisdiction for disputes arising under this part;(e)demonstrate compliance with student-privacy laws including Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection;(f)maintain reasonable administrative, technical, and physical cybersecurity safeguards to protect student data from unauthorized access, disclosure, or breach; and(g)not be owned, controlled, or subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign adversary.(13)The state board may:(a)maintain a registry of vendors that have demonstrated compliance with this part;(b)establish certification standards for vendor participation in sandbox pilots; and(c)remove vendors from the registry for violations of this part or applicable law.(14)A sandbox participant shall ensure that a contract with a vendor includes:(a)clear performance standards and service-level expectations;(b)termination provisions allowing immediate termination for non-compliance with this part;(c)data deletion requirements with certification upon termination;(d)audit rights allowing verification of compliance;(e)incident reporting requirements;(f)indemnification protecting the state and the sandbox participant; and(g)dispute resolution procedures.(15)A vendor may voluntarily disclose additional safety testing, evaluation results, or quality assurance measures beyond minimum requirements.

Section 15. Section 53E-11-212 is enacted to read:53E-11-212Effective 07/01/26. Educator training.(1)A sandbox participant may not permit an educator to use an artificial intelligence system with students until the educator completes required training addressing:(a)effective pedagogical use of artificial intelligence as a learning support tool;(b)identification of system limitations, errors, biases, and inappropriate outputs;(c)academic integrity monitoring and prevention of student misuse;(d)student data privacy obligations under this part and Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection;(e)recognition of bias, inappropriate content, or safety concerns in artificial intelligence outputs;(f)appropriate response when students express mental health concerns or crisis needs;(g)integration of artificial intelligence use with traditional instruction; and(h)student supervision and oversight requirements.(2)The state board shall develop training requirements and curricula in consultation with:(a)classroom teachers with artificial intelligence experience in educational settings;(b)education technology specialists;(c)student privacy experts;(d)parent representatives;(e)mental health professionals familiar with school settings; and(f)the advisory council.(3)The state board shall ensure training:(a)is provided at no cost to educators;(b)is available in multiple formats including online, in-person, and hybrid options;(c)is updated periodically to reflect technological developments and lessons learned; and(d)is accessible to educators with varying levels of technical expertise.(4)The state board may establish different training requirements for different types or levels of artificial intelligence use.

Section 16. Section 53E-11-213 is enacted to read:53E-11-213Effective 07/01/26. Liability protection.(1)A sandbox participant, educator, or vendor acting in good-faith compliance with this part and applicable state board rules is not liable solely for approved artificial intelligence use in a sandbox pilot.(2)The liability protection in Subsection (1) does not apply to:(a)gross negligence or willful misconduct;(b)violations of student-privacy law including Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection;(c)violations of this part or rules adopted under this part;(d)contractual obligations between parties; or(e)conduct outside the scope of the approved pilot.(3)This section does not:(a)waive governmental immunity under Title 63G, Chapter 7, Governmental Immunity Act of Utah;(b)create new causes of action not otherwise available under law;(c)limit remedies available for violations of student privacy, safety, or civil rights; or(d)prevent enforcement actions by the state board or other authorities for violations of this part.(4)Good-faith provision of crisis resources consistent with Section 53E-11-208 does not create liability for:(a)the content or effectiveness of crisis services provided by third-party providers including SafeUT;(b)student decisions to use or not use provided crisis resources; or(c)outcomes of mental health crises when appropriate resources are timely provided.

Section 17. Section 53E-11-214 is enacted to read:53E-11-214Effective 07/01/26. Independent evaluation.(1)The state board shall ensure independent evaluation of sandbox pilots.(2)The state board shall ensure independent evaluation measures, including:(a)educational outcomes including student achievement, engagement, critical thinking development, and preparation for technology use;(b)student safety and well-being including incidents, mental health impacts, crisis resource provisions, and student satisfaction;(c)privacy and cybersecurity including compliance with Chapter 9, Part 3, Student Data Protection, data breaches, vendor compliance, and parent concerns;(d)academic integrity including impact on authentic student work, incidents of misuse, and effectiveness of safeguards;(e)educator experience including professional satisfaction, workload impacts, training adequacy, and implementation challenges;(f)parental satisfaction including transparency adequacy, safety and privacy concerns, and opt-out rates; and(g)cost-effectiveness including implementation costs, time impacts, comparison to alternatives, and scalability.(3)The state board shall ensure an evaluator:(a)is independent of vendors, sandbox participants, and the state board;(b)is qualified through expertise in educational research, evaluation methodology, or relevant fields; and(c)is selected through competitive processes ensuring quality and independence.(4)The office shall report to the Education Interim Committee upon request regarding:(a)approved sandbox pilots and participating LEAs;(b)evaluation findings from completed or ongoing pilots;(c)student safety incidents and resolutions;(d)privacy compliance and any breaches or violations;(e)state board enforcement actions and appeals;(f)aggregate opt-out rates and patterns;(g)lessons learned and best practices identified;(h)challenges encountered and recommended solutions;(i)advisory council recommendations;(j)vendor red teaming results and safety performance; and(k)recommendations regarding policy, rules, or statewide adoption.(5)The state board shall ensure independent evaluations use rigorous research methodologies including:(a)quantitative outcome measures including:(i)pre-post assessment of student learning using validated instruments;(ii)comparison groups or baseline data to isolate artificial intelligence effects;(iii)statistical analysis of achievement gains, skill development, and learning progression;(iv)disaggregated analysis by student subgroups; (v)effect size calculations to determine practical significance of outcomes; and(vi)evaluation methods sufficient to allow reliable determination of whether the artificial intelligence system meaningfully improves student learning outcomes, including disclosure of methodological limitations that could materially affect interpretation of results;(b)qualitative evidence collection including:(i)structured interviews with educators, students, and parents;(ii)classroom observations of artificial intelligence use and integration;(iii)analysis of student work samples and learning artifacts;(iv)case studies of implementation challenges and successes; and(v)documentation of pedagogical approaches and adaptations;(c)safety and well-being monitoring including:(i)systematic tracking of safety incidents, inappropriate outputs, or student concerns;(ii)student surveys on experience, satisfaction, and perceived safety;(iii)documentation of crisis resource provisions and outcomes;(iv)analysis of bias patterns or inequitable impacts; and(v)mental health and well-being indicators; and(d)implementation fidelity assessment including:(i)documentation of educator training completion and quality;(ii)monitoring of human-in-the-loop supervision adherence;(iii)analysis of system usage patterns and engagement;(iv)identification of implementation barriers and facilitators; and(v)resource requirements and cost tracking.(6)The state board shall ensure evaluation methodologies meet standards for:(a)internal validity;(b)external validity;(c)reliability;(d)objectivity; and(e)transparency.(7)The state board shall ensure educational effectiveness determinations are based on:(a)student learning outcomes measured through:(i)standardized assessments where available and appropriate;(ii)curriculum-based measures aligned with learning objectives;(iii)authentic performance tasks and work samples;(iv)educator professional judgment of student progress; and(v)student self-assessment and metacognitive growth;(b)comparison to alternatives including:(i)outcomes compared to traditional instruction without artificial intelligence;(ii)outcomes compared to other educational interventions or technologies;(iii)cost-effectiveness relative to alternatives; and(iv)value-added analysis isolating artificial intelligence contributions; and(c)practical significance including:(i)magnitude of achievement gains relative to investment;(ii)impact on students most in need of support;(iii)sustainability and scalability considerations; and(iv)educator and student experience quality.(8)The state board shall apply evaluation standards consistently with other educational interventions or technologies.(9)The Legislature may consider:(a)peer review of evaluation methodologies and findings by external education researchers;(b)replication of successful pilots in additional settings before statewide adoption;(c)cost-benefit analysis including both financial and educational outcomes;(d)implementation support and training infrastructure needed for successful scaling;(e)comparison to evidence for other statewide educational initiatives or adoptions; and(f)stakeholder consensus or concerns about statewide implementation.(10)Statewide adoption decisions are legislative determinations based on totality of evidence.

Section 18. Section 53E-11-215 is enacted to read:53E-11-215Effective 07/01/26. Rulemaking.In addition to rulemaking authority granted to the office under Section 53E-11-218, the state board may make rules in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, to implement this part, including:(1)pilot application procedures and approval criteria in coordination with the office;(2)educator training requirements, curricula, and delivery methods;(3)vendor certification standards and registry procedures;(4)age-appropriate content and interaction standards for different grade levels;(5)crisis resource integration protocols with SafeUT and other services;(6)student data retention, de-identification, and deletion standards;(7)incident reporting procedures and timelines;(8)evaluation methodologies and reporting requirements;(9)enforcement procedures for violations of this part;(10)minimum standards for red teaming adequacy under Section 53E-11-207; and(11)other matters necessary to implement this part.

Section 19. Section 53E-11-216 is enacted to read:53E-11-216Effective 07/01/26. Technical assistance for education technology companies.(1)As used in this section, "Utah-based company" means a company that:(a)is incorporated or organized under state law or maintains a principal place of business in the state; and(b)employs a majority of the company's workforce in state or maintains significant operations in the state.(2)The state board shall provide technical assistance for education technology innovation by:(a)publishing clear guidance documents explaining approval criteria under Section 53E-11-206, compliance requirements, common pitfalls, and best practices;(b)providing example documentation and templates for sandbox pilot applications including red teaming documentation;(c)offering technical assistance to companies developing compliance documentation;(d)maintaining regular office hours for regulatory questions before application submission in coordination with the office;(e)connecting approved vendors with interested LEAs and facilitating introductions;(f)publishing case studies of successful sandbox pilots;(g)including state-based education technology companies in state education conferences and technology showcase events;(h)recognizing innovative pilots and successful implementations in state board publications and communications; and(i)coordinating with economic development agencies regarding education technology innovation.(3)The state board may provide state-based education technology companies participating in the sandbox:(a)dedicated technical assistance from state education technology specialists during application development;(b)introductions to potential pilot partner LEAs based on product focus and LEA needs;(c)inclusion in state education technology showcase events and conferences;(d)recognition in state board publications, website, and communications;(e)opportunities to present findings and best practices to the advisory council and state board; and(f)networking opportunities with other state education technology companies, educators, and investors.(4)The state board shall:(a)develop and publish criteria for Utah-based company designations;(b)establish processes for companies to demonstrate state-based status;(c)ensure support programs are administered fairly and transparently;(d)maintain data on participation by Utah-based companies in the sandbox; and(e)coordinate with the advisory council on recommendations for supporting state education technology innovation.(5)Nothing in this section:(a)creates different approval standards or safety requirements based on company location;(b)exempts any company from compliance with this part;(c)guarantees approval of any application; or(d)prevents non-state companies from participating in the sandbox on equal terms regarding safety and privacy standards.(6)An innovation LEA as defined in Section 53G-7-221 may use budget flexibility authorized under Section 53G-7-222 to support participation in sandbox pilots, subject to the requirements of that section.

Section 20. Section 53E-11-217 is enacted to read:53E-11-217Effective 07/01/26. Educational principles for artificial intelligence deployment.(1)This section states the following principles to guide the interpretation and administration of this chapter:(a)artificial intelligence in public education should support rather than replace human teaching and learning relationships;(b)artificial intelligence should serve student learning and well-being as the primary objective;(c)artificial intelligence should operate transparently and subject to meaningful human oversight; (d)artificial intelligence should respect parental authority, student dignity, and nondiscriminatory access to education consistent with federal and state law; and(e)when artificial intelligence supports instruction in history, civics, or social studies:(i)the system shall prioritize historically accurate, period-relevant primary sources;(ii)the system shall avoid presentism in a manner consistent with academic freedom, meaning the practice of interpreting historical actors or events primarily through contemporary ideological frameworks without grounding in period-relevant evidence; and(iii)the system shall support student engagement in objective evaluation of original sources consistent with scholarly inquiry.(2)This chapter implements the principles described in Subsection (1) through:(a)preservation of educator authority over grading and instructional decisions under Section 53E-11-210;(b)parental notice, access, and opt-out rights under Section 53E-11-209; (c)student safety and crisis-response protections under Section 53E-11-208; (d)student data privacy and vendor accountability under Section 53E-11-211;(e)human review of student-impacting decisions under Section 53E-11-210; and(f)historical source integrity in history, civics, and social studies instruction under Subsection (1)(e).(3) This section provides educational principles to guide the interpretation and administration of this chapter, but does not create a legal duty or requirement beyond a duty or requirement expressly established in this chapter.(4)This section:(a)does not create an independent cause of action;(b)may not be construed to establish a standard of care for purposes of negligence, professional malpractice, or other tort liability; and (c)does not expand a duty or obligation of a sandbox participant, educator, or vendor beyond a substantive requirement established in this chapter.(5)For purposes of sandbox pilot authorization and operation, compliance with the substantive requirements of this chapter, including:(a)the approval criteria under Section 53E-11-206;(b)the safety testing requirements under Section 53E-11-207; and (c)parental rights under Section 53E-11-209.(6)Subsections (4) and (5) do not limit:(a)enforcement of a substantive requirement established in this chapter;(b)the authority of the state board to adopt a rule implementing this chapter consistent with Section 53E-11-215; or(c)the authority of the Legislature to enact legislation addressing the use of artificial intelligence in public education.

Section 21. Section 53E-11-218 is enacted to read:53E-11-218Effective 07/01/26. Office rulemaking authority.The office may make rules in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, to implement this part, including:(1)pilot application procedures and approval criteria in coordination with the state board;(2)expedited application processes under Subsection 53E-11-206(9);(3)joint application procedures under Subsection 53E-11-206(10);(4)pilot monitoring and compliance verification procedures;(5)coordination protocols with the state board for enforcement matters;(6)public registry maintenance and reporting requirements;(7)waiver documentation requirements under Subsection 53E-11-204(3)(b); and(8)other administrative matters necessary to implement this part.

Section 22. Section 63I-1-253 is amended to read:63I-1-253Effective 07/01/26. Repeal dates: Titles 53 through 53G.(1)Section 53-1-122, Road Rage Awareness and Prevention Restricted Account, is repealed July 1, 2028.(2)Section 53-2a-105, Emergency Management Administration Council created -- Function -- Composition -- Expenses, is repealed July 1, 2029.(3)Section 53-2a-1103, Search and Rescue Advisory Board -- Members -- Compensation, is repealed July 1, 2030.(4)Section 53-2a-1104, General duties of the Search and Rescue Advisory Board, is repealed July 1, 2027.(5)Title 53, Chapter 2a, Part 15, Grid Resilience Committee, is repealed July 1, 2027.(6)Section 53-2d-104, State Emergency Medical Services Committee -- Membership -- Expenses, is repealed July 1, 2029.(7)Section 53-2d-503, Establishment of maximum rates, is repealed July 1, 2027.(8)Section 53-5a-302, Concealed Firearm Review Board -- Membership -- Compensation -- Terms -- Duties, is repealed July 1, 2029.(9)Section 53-11-104, Board, is repealed July 1, 2029.(10)Title 53, Chapter 31, Department Interaction With Local Law Enforcement, is repealed July 1, 2027.(11)Subsection 53C-3-203(4)(b)(vii), regarding the distribution of money from the Land Exchange Distribution Account to the Geological Survey for test wells and other hydrologic studies in the West Desert, is repealed July 1, 2030.(12)Subsection 53E-1-201(1)(q), regarding the Higher Education and Corrections Council, is repealed July 1, 2027.(13)Subsection 53E-2-304(6), regarding foreclosing a private right of action or waiver of governmental immunity, is repealed July 1, 2027.(14)Subsection 53E-3-503(5), regarding coordinating councils for youth in care, is repealed July 1, 2027.(15)Subsection 53E-3-503(6), regarding coordinating councils for youth in care, is repealed July 1, 2027.(16)Subsection 53E-4-202(8)(b), regarding a standards review committee, is repealed January 1, 2028.(17)Section 53E-4-203, Standards review committee, is repealed January 1, 2028.(18)Title 53E, Chapter 6, Part 5, Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission, is repealed July 1, 2033.(19)Subsection 53E-7-207(7), regarding a private right of action or waiver of governmental immunity, is repealed July 1, 2027.(20)Title 53E, Chapter 11, Part 2, Educational Technology Regulatory Sandbox, is repealed July 1, 2031.(20)(21)Section 53F-5-215, Elementary teacher preparation assessment grant, is repealed July 1, 2028.(21)(22)Section 53F-5-219, Local Innovations Civics Education Pilot Program, is repealed July 1, 2026.(22)(23)Title 53F, Chapter 10, Part 2, Capital Projects Evaluation Panel, is repealed July 1, 2027.(23)(24)Subsection 53G-4-608(2)(b), regarding the Utah Seismic Safety Commission, is repealed January 1, 2025.(24)(25)Subsection 53G-4-608(4)(b), regarding the Utah Seismic Safety Commission, is repealed January 1, 2025.(25)(26)Section 53G-9-212, Drinking water quality in schools, is repealed July 1, 2027.(26)(27)Subsection 53G-9-703(4), regarding the parental video presentation concerning student use of technology, is repealed January 1, 2030.(27)(28)Subsection 53H-1-402(1)(j), regarding the Higher Education and Corrections Council, is repealed July 1, 2027.(28)(29)Section 53H-1-604, Higher Education and Corrections Council, is repealed July 1, 2027.(29)(30)Subsection 53H-4-210(3), regarding the creation of the SafeUT and School Safety Commission, is repealed January 1, 2030.(30)(31)Subsection 53H-4-210(4), regarding the appointment of the members of the SafeUT and School Safety Commission, is repealed January 1, 2030.(31)(32)Subsection 53H-4-210(5), regarding the attorney general designating the chair of the SafeUT and School Safety Commission, is repealed January 1, 2030.(32)(33)Subsection 53H-4-210(6), regarding the quorum requirements of the SafeUT and School Safety Commission, is repealed January 1, 2030.(33)(34)Subsection 53H-4-210(7), regarding a formal action of the SafeUT and School Safety Commission, is repealed January 1, 2030.(34)(35)Subsection 53H-4-210(8), regarding compensation for members of the SafeUT and School Safety Commission, is repealed January 1, 2030.(35)(36)Subsection 53H-4-210(9), regarding the support staff for the SafeUT and School Safety Commission, is repealed January 1, 2030.(36)(37)Section 53H-4-306.1, Definitions -- Electrification of Transportation Infrastructure Research Center, is repealed July 1, 2028.(37)(38)Section 53H-4-306.2, Electrification of Transportation Infrastructure Research Center -- Designation -- Duties, is repealed July 1, 2028.(38)(39)Section 53H-4-306.3, Electrification of Transportation Infrastructure Research Center -- Steering committee, is repealed July 1, 2028.(39)(40)Section 53H-4-306.4, Electrification of Transportation Infrastructure Research Center -- Industry advisory board, is repealed July 1, 2028.(40)(41)Section 53H-4-306.5, Electrification of Transportation Infrastructure Research Center -- Duties of the project director, is repealed July 1, 2028.(41)(42)Section 53H-4-306.6, Electrification of Transportation Infrastructure Research Center -- Project development and strategic objectives -- Reporting requirements, is repealed July 1, 2028.(42)(43)Section 53H-4-307.1, Center for Civic Excellence, is repealed July 1, 2030.(43)(44)Section 53H-4-307.2, Center for Civic Excellence -- Duties -- Authority, is repealed July 1, 2030.(44)(45)Section 53H-4-307.3, Center for Civic Excellence -- Leadership, is repealed July 1, 2030.(45)(46)Section 53H-4-307.4, Center for Civic Excellence -- Faculty, is repealed July 1, 2030.(46)(47)Section 53H-4-307.5, Center for Civic Excellence -- Curriculum, is repealed July 1, 2030.(47)(48)Section 53H-4-307.6, Center for Civic Excellence -- Oversight -- Reporting, is repealed July 1, 2030.(48)(49)Section 53H-4-313, Food Security Council, is repealed July 1, 2027.(49)(50)Section 53H-8-305, Five-year performance goals, is repealed July 1, 2027.(50)(51)Title 53H, Chapter 10, Part 4, Education Savings Incentive Program, is repealed July 1, 2028.

Section 23. Section 63N-16-104 is amended to read:63N-16-104Effective 07/01/26. Creation and duties of advisory committee.(1)There is created the General Regulatory Sandbox Program Advisory Committee.(2)The advisory committee shall have 9 members as follows:(a)four members appointed by the director who represent business interests and are selected from a variety of industry clusters;(b)three members appointed by the director who represent state agencies that regulate businesses;(c)the director of the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy created under Section 13-72-201;(c)(d)one member of the Senate, appointed by the president of the Senate; and(d)(e)one member of the House of Representatives, appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives.(3)(a)Subject to Subsection (3)(b), members of the advisory committee who are not legislators shall be appointed to a four-year term.(b)Notwithstanding the requirements of Subsection (3)(a), the director may adjust the length of terms of appointments and reappointments to the advisory committee so that approximately half of the advisory committee is appointed every two years.(4)Notwithstanding the requirements in Subsection (2), the director may temporarily appoint up to three additional members to the advisory committee who represent business interests, industry, or regulatory or compliance interests to which an application for participation in the regulatory sandbox relates.(5)(a)When considering applications related to education technology under Title 53E, Chapter 11, Artificial Intelligence in Education, the council shall include at least one ad-hoc member with expertise in K-12 education, classroom instruction, or educational administration.(b)Ad-hoc members appointed under Subsection (5)(a) may participate in council deliberations and recommendations regarding education technology applications.(5)(6)A majority of the advisory committee constitutes a quorum for the purpose of conducting advisory committee business, and the action of the majority of a quorum constitutes the action of the advisory committee.(6)(7)The advisory committee shall:(a)advise and make recommendations to the regulatory relief office as described in this chapter;(b)designate the laws and regulations of an industry for potential study by the regulatory relief office as described in Section 63N-16-105; and(c)annually select a chair of the advisory committee.(7)(8)The regulatory relief office shall provide administrative staff support for the advisory committee.(8)(9)(a)A member may not receive compensation or benefits for the member's service, but a member appointed under Subsection (2)(a) may receive per diem and travel expenses in accordance with:(i)Sections 63A-3-106 and 63A-3-107; and(ii)rules made by the Division of Finance pursuant to Sections 63A-3-106 and 63A-3-107.(b)Compensation and expenses of a member who is a legislator are governed by Section 36-2-2 and Legislative Joint Rules, Title 5, Legislative Compensation and Expenses.

Section 24. Effective Date.This bill takes effect on July 1, 2026.