[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66267-66278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26445]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 66267]]



OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

1 CFR Part 51

[Docket Number: OFR-2013-0001]
RIN 3095-AB78


Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records 
Administration.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, we are revising our regulations on 
incorporation by reference to require that agencies seeking the 
Director of the Federal Register's approval of their incorporation by 
reference requests add more information regarding materials 
incorporated by reference to the preambles of their rulemaking 
documents. Specifically, agencies must set out, in the preambles of 
their proposed and final rules, a discussion of the actions they took 
to ensure the materials are reasonably available to interested parties 
and that they summarize the contents of the materials they wish to 
incorporate by reference.

DATES: This rule is effective January 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may find information on this rulemaking docket at 
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Docket 
materials are also available at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 
North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002, 202-741-
6030. Please contact the persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection of docket materials. The 
Office of the Federal Register's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miriam Vincent, Staff Attorney, Office 
of the Federal Register, at [email protected], or 202-741-6030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Federal Register (OFR or 
we) published a request for comments on a petition to revise our 
regulations at 1 CFR part 51 \1\ (part 51). The petition specifically 
requested that we amend our regulations to: (1) Define ``reasonably 
available'' and (2) include several requirements related to the 
statutory obligation that material incorporated by reference (IBR) be 
reasonably available. Our original request for comments had a 30-day 
comment period. After requests from several interested parties, we 
extended the comment period until June 1, 2012.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FR 11414 (February 27, 2012).
    \2\ 77 FR 16761 (March 22, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our current regulations require that agencies provide us with the 
materials they wish to IBR. Once we approve an IBR request, we maintain 
the IBR'd materials in our library until they are accessioned to the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under our records 
schedule).\3\ NARA then maintains this material as permanent Federal 
records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html last visited August 11, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agreed that our regulations needed to be updated and published a 
proposed rule on October 2, 2013.\4\ However, we stated that the 
petitioners' proposed changes to our regulations go beyond our 
statutory authority. The petitioners contended that changes in 
technology, including our new Web site www.federalregister.gov, along 
with electronic Freedom of Information Act \5\ (E-FOIA) reading rooms, 
have made the print publication of the Federal Register unnecessary. 
They also suggested that the primary, original reason for allowing IBR 
was to limit the amount of material published in the Federal Register 
and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).\6\ The petitioners argued that 
with the advent of the Internet and online access our print-focused 
regulations are out of date and obsolete. The petition then stated that 
statutory authority and social development since our current 
regulations were first issued require that material IBR'd into the CFR 
be available online and free of charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 78 FR 60784 (October 2, 2013). We extended the comment 
period on this proposal until January 31, 2014. See, 78 FR 69006 
(November 18, 2013) and 78 FR 69594 (November 20, 2013).
    \5\ Public Law 104-231 (1996).
    \6\ In fact, agencies were incorporating material by reference 
long before we were assigned the task of normalizing the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition further suggested that our regulations need to apply 
at the proposed rule stage of agency rulemaking projects and that the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) and 
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-119 distinguish 
between regulations that require use of a particular standard and those 
that ``serve to indicate that one of the ways in which a regulation can 
be met is through use of a particular standard favoring the use of 
standards as non-binding ways to meet compliance.'' \7\ In addition, 
the petition argued that Veeck v. S. Bldg. Code Cong. Int'l, 293 F.3d 
791 (5th Cir. 2002) casts doubt on the legality of charging for 
standards IBR'd. Finally, the petition stated that in the electronic 
age the benefits to the federal government are diminished by electronic 
publication as are the benefits to the members of the class affected if 
they have to pay high fees to access the standards. Thus, agencies 
should at least be required to demonstrate how they tried to contain 
those costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NARA-12-0002-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners proposed regulation text to enact their suggested 
revisions to part 51. The petitioners' regulation text would require 
agencies to demonstrate that material proposed to be IBR'd in the 
regulation text was available throughout the comment period: (1) In the 
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) in the docket for the proposal 
or interim rule; (2) on the agency's Web site or; (3) readable free of 
charge on the Web site of the voluntary standards organization that 
created it during the comment period of a proposed rule or interim 
rule. The petition suggested revising Sec.  51.7--''What publications 
are eligible''--to limit IBR eligibility only to standards that are 
available online for free by adding a new (c)(3) that would ban any 
standard not available for free from being IBR'd. It also appeared to 
revise Sec.  51.7(a)(2) to include documents that would otherwise be 
considered guidance documents. And, it would revise Sec.  51.7(b) to 
limit our review of agency-created materials to the question of whether 
the material is available online. The petition would then revise Sec.  
51.9 to distinguish between required

[[Page 66268]]

standards and those that could be used to show compliance with a 
regulatory requirement. Finally, the petition would add a requirement 
that, in the electronic version of a regulation, any material IBR'd 
into that regulation be hyperlinked.
    The petitioners wanted us to require that: (1) All material IBR'd 
into the CFR be available for free online; and (2) the Director of the 
Federal Register (the Director) include a review of all documents that 
agencies list in their guidance, in addition to their regulations, as 
part of the IBR approval process. We find these requirements go beyond 
our statutory authority. Nothing in the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA) (5 U.S.C. chapter 5), E-FOIA, or other statutes specifically 
address this issue. If we required that all materials IBR'd into the 
CFR be available for free, that requirement would compromise the 
ability of regulators to rely on voluntary consensus standards, 
possibly requiring them to create their own standards, which is 
contrary to the NTTAA and the OMB Circular A-119.
    Further, the petition didn't address the Federal Register Act (FRA) 
(44 U.S.C. chapter 15), which still requires print publication of both 
the Federal Register and the CFR, or 44 U.S.C. 4102, which allows the 
Superintendent of Documents to charge a reasonable fee for online 
access to the Federal electronic information, including the Federal 
Register.\8\ The petition suggested that the Director monitor proposed 
rules to ensure that the material proposed to be IBR'd is available 
during the comment period of a proposed rule. Then, once a rule is 
effective, we monitor the agency to ensure that the IBR'd materials 
remain available online. This requirement that OFR continue monitoring 
agency rules is well beyond the current resources available to this 
office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See also 44 U.S.C. 4101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the petition's limitation on agency-created material, the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), at 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (section 552(a)), 
mandates approval by the Director of material proposed for IBR to 
safeguard the Federal Register system. Thus, OFR regulations contain a 
provision that material IBR'd must not detract from the legal and 
practical attributes of that system.\9\ An implied presumption is that 
material developed and published by a Federal agency is inappropriate 
for IBR by that agency, except in limited circumstances. Otherwise, the 
Federal Register and CFR could become a mere index to material 
published elsewhere. This runs counter to the central publication 
system for Federal regulations envisioned by Congress when it enacted 
the FRA and the APA.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See also 44 U.S.C. 4101.
    \10\ 47 FR 34107 (August 6, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the petition didn't address the enforcement of these 
provisions. Agencies have the expertise on the substantive matters 
addressed by the regulations. To remove or suspend the regulations 
because the IBR'd material is no longer available online would create a 
system where the only determining factor for using a standard is 
whether it is available for free online. This would minimize and 
undermine the role of the Federal agencies who are the substantive 
subject matter experts and who are better suited to determine what 
standard should be IBR'd into the CFR based on their statutory 
requirements, the entities they regulate, and the needs of the general 
public.
    Additionally, the OFR's mission under the FRA is to maintain 
orderly codification of agency documents of general applicability and 
legal effect.\11\ As set out in the FRA and the implementing 
regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register 
(ACFR) (found in 1 CFR chapter I), only the agency that issues the 
regulations codified in a CFR chapter can amend those regulations. If 
an agency took the IBR'd material offline, OFR could only add an 
editorial note to the CFR explaining that the IBR'd material was no 
longer available online without charge. We could not remove the 
regulations or deny agencies the ability to issue or revise other 
regulations. Revising our regulations as proposed by the petition would 
simply add requirements that could not be adequately enforced and thus, 
likely wouldn't be complied with by agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 44 U.S.C. 1505 and 1510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our document announcing that we received a petition to revise 
our regulations in part 51, we specifically requested comments on nine 
issues.\12\ We received comments on each of those issues and addressed 
them in our NPRM.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 77 FR 11414 (February 27, 2012).
    \13\ 78 FR 60784 (October 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our NPRM, we stated our concerns regarding several of the 
petitioners' suggested revisions to our regulations. We stated that 
while OFR does have the authority to review NPRMs to ensure our 
publication requirements are met, a substantive review of IBR'd 
materials referenced in a proposed rule, as implied by the petition, is 
beyond our authority and resources. We also noted that the OFR has not 
reviewed IBR'd material in NPRMs for approval because agencies may 
decide to request approval for different standards at the final rule 
stage based on changed circumstances, including public comments on the 
NPRM, requiring a new approval at the final rule stage. Or, agencies 
could decide to withdraw the NPRM. These factors make review and 
approval at the proposed rule stage impractical.
    In our discussion of the copyright issues raised by the petitioners 
and commenters, we noted that recent developments in Federal law, 
including the Veeck decision \14\ and the amendments to FOIA, and the 
NTTAA have not eliminated the availability of copyright protection for 
privately developed codes and standards referenced in or incorporated 
into federal regulations. Therefore, we agreed with commenters who said 
that when the Federal government references copyrighted works, those 
works should not lose their copyright. However, we believed the 
responsible government agency should collaborate with the standards 
development organizations (SDOs) and other publishers of IBR'd 
materials, when necessary, to ensure that the public does have 
reasonable access to the referenced documents. Therefore, we proposed 
in the NPRM to require that agencies discuss how the IBR'd standards 
are reasonably available to commenters and to regulated entities. One 
way to make standards reasonably available, if they aren't already, is 
to work with copyright holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, 
Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also proposed to review agency NPRMs to ensure that the agency 
provides either: (1) An explanation of how it worked to make the 
proposed IBR'd material reasonably available to commenters or; (2) a 
summary of the proposed IBR'd material. We proposed that agencies 
include a discussion in their final rule preambles regarding the ways 
it worked to make the incorporated materials available to interested 
parties. We stated that this process would not unduly delay publication 
of agency NPRMs or Final Rules and did not go beyond OFR's statutory 
authority.
    Several commenters were concerned that our NPRM didn't go far 
enough--specifically noting that the proposed rule wouldn't require 
agencies to provide free access to standards incorporated by reference 
into the CFR. The issue of ``reasonable availability'' continued to 
elicit comments related to the NPRM and we will discuss this issue, 
along with other comments, below.

[[Page 66269]]

    Based on comments to our NPRM, we have modified the regulation text 
slightly so that we now require that if agencies seek the Director's 
approval of an IBR request, they must set out the following information 
in the preambles of their rulemaking documents: (1) Discussions of how 
the materials are reasonably available and, if they aren't, the actions 
the agency took to make the materials reasonably available to 
interested parties and; (2) summaries of the content of the materials 
the agencies wish to IBR.

Discussion of Comments

Authority of the Director To Issue Regulations Regarding IBR

    One commenter again alleged that the OFR does not have the proper 
authority to amend the regulations in 1 CFR part 51.\15\ As we stated 
in the NPRM, we disagree with the commenter. Because section 552(a) 
specifically states that the Director will approve agency requests for 
IBR and that material IBR'd is not set out in regulatory text, the 
Director has the sole authority to issue regulations governing the IBR-
approval request procedures. We have maintained this position since the 
IBR regulations were first issued in the 1960's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ OFR-2013-0001-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations on the IBR approval process were first issued by 
the Director in 1967 and found at 1 CFR part 20.\16\ Even though this 
part was within the ACFR's CFR chapter, the preamble to the document 
stated ``the Director of the Federal Register hereby establishes 
standards and procedures governing his approval of instances of 
incorporation by reference.'' \17\ And, while these regulations 
appeared in the ACFR's CFR chapter, this final rule was issued and 
signed solely by the Director. These regulations were later 
republished, along with the entire text of Chapter I, by the ACFR in 
1969; \18\ however the ACFR stated that the republication contained no 
substantive changes to the regulations. In 1972, the ACFR proposed a 
major substantive revision of Chapter I.\19\ In that proposed rule, the 
ACFR proposed removing the IBR regulations from Chapter I because 
``part 20. . . is a regulation of the Director of the Federal Register 
rather than the Administrative Committee.'' \20\ In that same issue of 
the Federal Register, the Director issued a proposed rule proposing to 
establish a new Chapter II in Title 1 of the CFR that governed IBR 
approval procedures.\21\ These proposals were not challenged on this 
issue, so the final rules removing regulations from the ACFR chapter 
and establishing a new chapter for the Director were published on 
November 4, 1972 at 37 FR 23602 and 23614, respectively. Thus, it is 
appropriate for the Director, not the ACFR, to issue the regulations 
found in 1 CFR part 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 32 FR 7899 (June 1, 1967).
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ 34 FR 19106 at 19115 (December 2, 1969).
    \19\ 37 FR 6804 (April 4, 1972).
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ 37 FR 6817 (April 4 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for this commenter's concerns regarding following the rulemaking 
requirements, we believe that we have followed the proper rulemaking 
procedures as we are required to do and that we have taken into 
consideration the impact of our revisions on both federal agencies and 
the public.

Class of Persons Affected

    A few commenters suggested that we define ``class of persons 
affected'' to mean all interested parties. At least one commenter 
claimed that section 552(a)'s reference to ``class of persons 
affected'' is broader than just those who must comply with the 
regulation--that it includes anyone with a ``stake in the content of 
the IBR materials.'' \22\ The commenter based this claim on the phrase 
in the undesignated paragraph, which provides that if the document 
doesn't publish in the Federal Register and the person doesn't have 
actual notice of the document that person may be ``adversely affected'' 
by the agency document. This commenter claimed that this provision, 
along with the provision in 5 U.S.C. 702 (allowing persons who have 
been ``adversely affected'' by an agency action to seek judicial 
review), demonstrates that ``class of persons affected,'' as stated in 
the provision allowing IBR, should be read more broadly ``to require 
availability to those simply `affected' by the terms of the 
incorporated material.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ OFR-2013-0001-0029 at page 13.
    \23\ OFR-2013-0001-0029 at page 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the IBR provision contains a slight language change that 
modifies ``affected'' by adding the phrase ``class of persons.'' This 
addition could be read as an indication that the IBR material must be 
reasonably available to those who must directly comply with the 
regulation. Under the statute, it is acceptable to have material 
reasonably available beyond the class of persons affected but it is not 
required.
    We continue to have concerns that any definition will fail because 
it is either too broad to be meaningful or too restrictive to capture a 
total class. Therefore we decline to define the phrase ``class of 
persons affected.'' Thus, agencies maintain the flexibility to 
determine who is within the class of persons affected by a regulation 
or regulatory program on a case-by-case basis to respond to specific 
situations.

Reasonably Available

    Several commenters agreed with the petitioners that reasonably 
available means for free to anyone online, but they provided little or 
no additional comment on this point. Many of the SDOs supported our 
proposal and discussed how they are already providing access to their 
standards that have been IBR'd. One commenter who supported our NPRM 
noted that reasonably available was highly content-driven and felt the 
agency issuing the rule should ensure that the standards are reasonably 
available.\24\ Another agreed with our proposal, stating that agency 
subject matter experts are suited to determine if a standard should be 
IBR'd.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ OFR-2013-0001-0030.
    \25\ OFR-2013-0001-0038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, some commenters alleged that the only way for OFR to meet 
its statutory obligation was to deny IBR approval for all standards 
there were not available for free online. A couple of commenters 
modified their stance and claimed that OFR has a duty to deny IBR 
approval for all standards that were not available at no cost to all 
interested persons. Another suggested that, because of the internet, 
reasonably available ``with respect to the law must now be understood 
to mean available with not more than the minimal cost or effort 
required to travel to a public or government depository library.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ OFR-2013-001-0029 at page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter commented generally on the U.S. tradition to provide 
``inexpensive and widespread access to the law.'' \27\ This tradition 
is tied to the current Administration's goal of transparency and 
accountability. This commenter further stated that the government's 
decision to regulate by incorporating expensive standards into 
regulations is similar to charging filing fees and poll taxes and sends 
a damaging message to the public. Other commenters suggested that our 
proposal unlawfully delegates the reasonably available determination to 
agencies. At least one commenter stated that OFR is bound by statute to 
ensure that materials are reasonably available ``regardless of the 
effect on the use of voluntary standards.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ OFR-2013-0001-0036, see also OFR-2013-0001-0029.
    \28\ OFR-2013-0001-0037 at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two other commenters vehemently argued that in order to be 
reasonably

[[Page 66270]]

available, IBR'd standards must be accessible to all interested 
parties.\29\ Both suggested that it is not enough to have material 
available to be examined at the OFR. One commenter was concerned that 
our proposal merely asks agencies how they worked with SDOs and other 
publishers on the access issue.\30\ This commenter went on to state 
that this requirement won't provide more consistent availability of 
standards or ensure that the public has enough information to submit an 
effective comment. The commenter expressed concern that agencies may, 
in an effort to save money or time (negotiating with SDOs), decide that 
despite unsuccessful attempts to make a standard reasonably available, 
it would still request IBR approval, which we would grant. The 
commenter further stated ``[a]t root then, access to all incorporated 
matter should be free, if the evils of `secret law' OFR was established 
to resist are to be avoided.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ OFR-2013-001-0024 and OFR-2013-001-0029.
    \30\ OFR-2013-001-0029.
    \31\ OFR-2013-001-0029 at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These commenters appeared to have a fundamental issue with 
agencies' ability to IBR materials into the CFR. We decline to address 
whether or not agencies should be allowed to IBR materials into the 
CFR. This is beyond our authority. In this rule, we balanced our 
statutory obligations regarding reasonable availability of the 
standards with: (1) U.S. copyright law, (2) U.S. international trade 
obligations, and (3) agencies' ability to substantively regulate under 
their authorizing statutes. To achieve this balance, this rule requires 
that agencies to discuss how IBR'd materials were made available to 
parties (and where those materials are located) and to provide a 
summary of those materials in the preambles of their rulemaking 
documents. These requirements oblige agencies to provide more 
information on how they made IBR'd material available and a summary of 
the material, so the readers can, if they like, find and review the 
standards. This rule continues to require that agencies provide the OFR 
with a copy of the standard and maintain a copy at the agency for 
public inspection; therefore we disagree that this rule is an unlawful 
delegation of authority to the agencies.
    Another commenter adamantly stated that the Director of the Federal 
Register has the sole authority to set procedures for the approval of 
agency requests for IBR. This commenter stated that ``reasonably 
available'' is the sole statutory criterion for IBR approval so all 
other considerations must be considered secondarily.\32\ This commenter 
went on to state that it is not enough that agencies are required to 
simply announce the location of IBR'd material.\33\ The commenter added 
that our proposal won't work, because requiring a summary of the 
standards in the preamble does nothing for interested parties \34\ 
``and would simply represent another wasteful check-off process in the 
Federal Register publication process.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ OFR-2013-0001-0004.
    \33\ Id. At page 1. Citing Senator report No 88-1219 at 4 (1964) 
and the 1967 Attorney General's Memorandum on the Public Information 
Section of the Administrative Procedure Act (1967).
    \34\ This commenter goes on to claim that OFR is wrong to assume 
that agencies would remove online access to IBR'd materials, while 
in the same comment, stating that the proposal provides agencies no 
practical incentive to make IBR'd materials reasonably available, 
implying that without OFR specifically requiring IBR'd materials be 
available for free online, agencies will do nothing to improve 
access to standards.
    \35\ OFR-2013-0001-0004 at page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is unfortunate that this commenter believed that the publication 
requirements of the ACFR and Director (found in 1 CFR chapters I and 
II) are just wasteful check-off processes. The FRA established the 
ACFR, in part to provide that there was consistency on how agency 
documents publish in the Federal Register. When this Act was amended in 
1938 to create the CFR, it provided that the ACFR would issue 
regulations to carry out the codification of agency documents of 
general applicability and legal affect.\36\ As discussed throughout 
this rule, the FOIA gave the Director the authority to approve agency 
requests to IBR materials into their regulations.\37\ Both the ACFR and 
the Director have throughout the years worked hard to ensure that the 
publication requirements they issue provide the agencies and the public 
clarity, uniformity, and consistency to maintain an orderly publication 
system for federal agency documents and minimize busy work for the 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 44 U.S.C. 1510.
    \37\ 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to this commenter's other issues concerning the 
Director's authority, as we stated in our NPRM, we are a procedural 
agency. We do not have the subject matter expertise (technical or 
legal) to tell another agency how they can best reach a rulemaking 
decision. There must be a balance between procedural requirements and 
agencies' substantive statutory authority and requirements. To achieve 
this balance, we are issuing rules that require agencies to discuss how 
IBR'd materials were made available to parties (including where those 
materials are located) and to summarize those materials in the 
preambles of their rulemaking documents. We added the summary 
requirement, not as a replacement for access to the IBR'd standard, but 
to give the public enough information to know if they need access to 
the standard. We believe the requirements set out in this rule provide 
flexibility needed for agencies to determine that IBR'd documents are 
reasonably available.
    Some commenters made a distinction between reasonably available at 
different stages of rulemaking, suggesting that materials need to be 
more widely available at no cost during the comment period of a 
proposed rule.\38\ These commenters' suggested that reasonably 
available would be more limited during the effective period of the 
rule, in part to ease the burden on OFR resources.\39\ We disagree; 
distinguishing between the proposed rule and final rule stages of 
agency rulemakings will require development of a more elaborate 
approval process that will place additional burdens on agency and OFR 
staff. In the late 1970s we attempted a more complex approval process 
that was too difficult to maintain so we revised the IBR approval 
process in 1982.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ OFR-2013-0001-0022 and OFR-2013-001-0007.
    \39\ OFR-2013-001-0007 at page 3.
    \40\ 47 FR 34108 (August 6, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that we provide a ``safe harbor'' by 
declaring that any standards provided for free online are deemed 
reasonably available by the Director.\41\ This commenter would place 
the burden of proof on the agency to demonstrate that the materials 
were reasonably available if they were not available for free online. 
We decline to follow this suggestion; it creates an uncertainty in the 
law because no one knows whether an IBR is enforceable or not. It is 
not clear what would happen if the material was no longer available for 
free online and the agency didn't certify that it was reasonably 
available. Under ACFR regulations, we cannot amend another agency's CFR 
provisions, so at best we would need to add an editorial note after 
each CFR provision that included IBR'd material that was no longer 
approved. We would also need to monitor all IBR's to ensure that some 
information regarding the status of IBR'd materials were maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ OFR-2013-001-0007 at page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At least 2 commenters complained that the proposed rule didn't 
address

[[Page 66271]]

the reasonable availability of the standards once the final rules were 
codified in the CFR. One commenter stated that ``the CFR has been 
transformed from a mechanism to inform citizens into a profit 
opportunity for a few private organizations.'' \42\ Another commenter 
suggested that agencies post the text of the standards on their Web 
sites to ensure that text of the IBR'd standards is available while the 
rule is codified in the CFR.\43\ As an alternative, the commenter 
states that materials could be posted on SDOs Web sites so long as 
agencies certify, each year, that IBR'd materials are still on the SDOs 
Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ OFR-2013-0001-0012 at page 5.
    \43\ OFR-2013-0001-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that even if agencies decide to repackage the text of 
standards they wish to IBR, they must ensure that this repackaged text 
meets the requirements in 51.7 and 51.9 or we will not approve the 
agency's IBR request. As for the suggestion that agencies annually 
certify that IBR materials are reasonably available--we have already 
demonstrated that is not a viable option. From 1979 through 1982, we 
approved material IBR'd on a yearly basis, as part of a comprehensive 
review of all material IBR'd and a review of the overall approval 
process.\44\ It soon became clear that a one-year review was neither 
practical nor efficient. We chose not to extend the program but to 
return to the original process. As we stated above, the orderly 
codification requirements of the FRA and the ACFR prohibit us from 
amending another agency's regulations so it is not clear how the 
expiration of an IBR approval would be identified in the CFR without 
undermining orderly codification and without returning to an approval 
system that has already failed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 44 FR 18630, as corrected at 44 FR 19181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Access

    Several commenters specifically discussed access as part of their 
comments addressing reasonably available. Many commenters agreed with 
the petitioners, stating that the law must be accessible and free to 
use, therefore IBR'd standards should also be freely available to 
anyone wishing to review them. One commenter stated that free access to 
IBR'd standards strengthens the capacity of public interest groups to 
engage in the rulemaking process and work on solutions to public policy 
issues.\45\ Another stated that the public's right to access the 
content of regulations, including IBR'd material, is ``a critical 
safeguard to agency capture and other government issues.'' \46\ Other 
commenters generally agreed with our NPRM, stating that reasonable 
availability and transparency did not automatically mean free access 
\47\ and supporting the idea that agencies need flexibility to work 
with the SDOs to provide access to standards.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ OFR-2013-0001-0031.
    \46\ OFR-2013-0001-0029 at page 11.
    \47\ OFR-2013-0001-0033.
    \48\ OFR-2013-0001-0020 and OFR-2013-0001-0018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of SDOs commented specifically on access and discussed how 
they make their standards available online.\49\ One stated that access 
should not require the loss of copyright protection.\50\ One SDO board 
stated that they make standards available in the following ways: Online 
sales; classes; limited-time, no-cost, no-print electronic access; 
membership in the organization, and the ability to request fee 
waivers.\51\ Another standards organization stated that its standards 
are available through third party vendors.\52\ It also stated that the 
headings and outlines of its standards are freely available and that it 
also provides read-only online access to its standards. Another also 
stated that it provides no-cost read-only online access to its 
standards and also provides scopes and summaries of each standard on 
its Web site.\53\ One stated that access is important but shouldn't 
undermine or dismantle the public-private partnership that currently 
exists to create high-quality technical standards.\54\ To support 
access and agency efforts to update standards referenced in 
regulations, it makes immediate past versions of its standards 
available for review in online in RealRead. Further, older standards 
can be purchased and it will work with agencies to expand its titles in 
RealRead.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See, OFR-2013-001-0017, OFR-2013-001-0020, OFR-2013-001-
0027 and OFR-2013-001-0028.
    \50\ OFR-2013-0001-0018.
    \51\ OFR-2013-001-0023.
    \52\ OFR-2013-001-0035.
    \53\ OFR-2013-001-0025.
    \54\ OFR-2013-0001-0028.
    \55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OFR applauds all the efforts of these private organizations to make 
their IBR'd standards available to the public. We encourage agencies 
and SDOs to continue to ensure access to IBR'd standards.
    One commenter stated that summarizing the documents isn't enough; 
regulated entities must have access to the actual documents and these 
documents must be available free to the public in at least one location 
as long as the rule is effective. Since it is hard to access the copies 
at the National Archives, we require that agencies maintain a copy of 
the documents they IBR. We retained the requirements in this rule that 
agencies retain a copy of the IBR'd standard for inspection and provide 
the OFR a copy of IBR standards.
    Another commenter believed that access to standards on SDOs Web 
sites is insufficient to meet the reasonably available requirement at 
any stage of the rulemaking process because the SDO can remove the 
standard or charge for access to it at any time.\56\ In addition, this 
commenter believed that SDOs requirement that individuals sign a 
release to access the read-only standard may deter the public or small 
businesses from accessing standards. If the SDO does remove standards 
from its Web site, the only option, according to this commenter, is to 
travel to our offices in Washington, DC to review them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ OFR-2013-0001-0036. The commenter also asserted that the 
SDO standards development processes doesn't balance all interests 
reliably so the public needs complete access to the standards to 
make sure the agencies are ``acting appropriately in relying upon 
these standards.'' At page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have no authority to require SDOs to upload and maintain their 
standards on their Web sites, and while this is one way to demonstrate 
access, it is not the only way to show reasonable availability. To 
improve access to standards and provide the public more information on 
how to access the standards, this rule requires that agencies discuss 
how the standards were made available during the life-cycle of the 
rule. We also require that agencies provide a summary of the standard 
in the preamble to allow readers to make their determination on whether 
to access a standard to assist in drafting a comment on a particular 
rulemaking project. We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the 
only place interested parties can access standards, if they aren't 
available online, is at our office in Washington, DC. As mentioned 
above, we kept the requirement that agencies retain a copy of the IBR'd 
standard for inspection and provide the OFR a copy of IBR'd standards. 
Further, material remains available through SDOs and usually, if a 
standard has been discontinued, through resellers.
    Another commenter recommended that OFR adopt an IBR approval 
program based on contingent approvals. The commenter suggested that 
OFR's IBR approval be effective only as long as the standard is freely 
available. If the public can't access a standard for free, then the IBR 
approval ``would

[[Page 66272]]

evaporate.'' \57\ The standard would not be legally IBR'd and would be 
unenforceable. The commenter stated that the statute doesn't prohibit 
an approval that would be revoked automatically and that revocation 
could be privately enforced by individuals using the Federal courts. 
The commenter asserted that these contingent approvals would not drain 
OFR resources because the revocation of the IBR approval would be 
automatic and immediate. It would provide an incentive for both the 
agencies and the SDOs to ensure continued free online access because 
standards that weren't freely available online would not be 
enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ OFR-2013-0001-0004 at pages 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with these commenters' assertion that we can delegate 
our enforcement authority to private entities without ``final reviewing 
authority over the private party's actions.'' \58\ Even if we could, it 
would create uncertainty in the law because no one would know whether 
an IBR is effective and enforceable or not. There is no way we can 
track and review all Federal court cases for IBR'd material. We also 
can't resolve conflicts between Circuits. Finally, even with a 
definitive court decision, we couldn't amend another agency's 
regulations. So the system this commenter suggested is less transparent 
and accessible than the current IBR approval process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ National Park and Conservation Ass'n v. Stanton, 54 
F.Supp2d 7, 18 (D.D.C. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Standards

    Several commenters discussed the costs of the standards in their 
comments on our NPRM.\59\ Some raised concerns that SDOs were charging 
monopoly prices for standards \60\ or using copyright as a device to 
make money and fund SDO operations.\61\ Others were of the opinion that 
any charge for an IBR'd standard effectively hides the law behind a pay 
wall which is illegal and means the standard is not available.\62\ At 
least one commenter stated that while there was a need to charge a 
reasonable fee to recover printing costs, this no longer applies where 
technology now enables the storage and retrieval of large amounts of 
data at virtually no cost.\63\ This commenter suggested that giving the 
public free access to the standards would not ``undermine incentives to 
participate in the voluntary standards development process.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ At least 2 comments stated that FOIA envisioned that IBR'd 
standards would be commercially available through a subscription 
service, not held for individual sale, suggesting that purchasing a 
subscription could be more affordable than purchasing each 
individual standard, see OFR-2013-001-0024 and OFR-2013-001-0029. We 
note that we received comments to our initial request for comments 
on the petition that suggested obtaining access to subscriptions 
services for certain IBR'd materials is not substantially cheaper 
and sets up other road blocks for entities wishing to purchase only 
one particular standard.
    \60\ OFR-2013-001-0012.
    \61\ OFR-2013-001-0019.
    \62\ See generally, OFR-2013-001-0024, OFR-2013-001-0036, OFR-
2013-001-0029, OFR-2013-001-0004, OFR-2013-001-0021, and OFR-2013-
001-0037.
    \63\ OFR-2013-001-0034.
    \64\ OFR-2013-001-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we stated in our NPRM, these materials may not be as easily 
accessible as the commenters would like, but they are described in the 
regulatory text in sufficient detail so that a member of the public can 
identify the standard IBR'd into the regulation. OFR regulations also 
require that agencies include publisher information and agency contact 
information so that anyone wishing to locate a standard has contact 
information for the both the standard's publisher and the agency IBRing 
the standard.
    A couple of commenters suggested that OFR needs to proceed with 
caution and consider the costs of IBR'd standards, including extra 
compliance costs for small businesses in highly regulated areas.\65\ At 
least 2 commenters suggested that OFR must consider the cost of the 
standard and the price of access, including the cost of travel to 
Washington DC to examine the standard, when deciding whether to approve 
an agency request to IBR standards.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ OFR-2013-001-0019 and OFR-2013-001-00319. See also OFR-
2013-001-0029, this commenter specifically referenced technical 
standards, saying they must be available to the public, and stating 
that the compliance obligations are same.
    \66\ OFR-2013-001-0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Expanding on this idea, one commenter stated that OFR is allowing 
agencies to IBR standards that must be purchased, therefore OFR needs 
to make sure the regulatory requirements are set out in the rule in 
enough detail that people can understand those requirements.\67\ This 
commenter also insisted that, as part of the approval process, agencies 
must state the cost of the standard before they receive approval and 
certify that if the price changes or if the standard isn't available 
the regulation is unenforceable to ensure the reasonable availability 
of the IBR's standard during the entire lifecycle of the rule.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ OFR-2013-001-0029.
    \68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter stated generally that the cost of buying the 
standard is less than the cost of complying with the regulation.\69\ 
One of these commenters stated that OFR needs to review the standards 
for costs to the affected industries and look for any potential 
conflicts in regulations along with formally defining ``reasonably 
available.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ OFR-2013-001-0023.
    \70\ OFR-2013-001-0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that free and online would compromise the 
ability of regulators to rely on voluntary consensus standards.\71\ 
This commenter stated that revenue from sales, along with providing 
salaries, benefits facilities, global development and training, and 
also supports the broader mission of professional engineering societies 
and funds research for standards and technology. Finally, this 
commenter suggested that there may also be a potential downstream 
impact threatening billions of dollars in global trade and the 
development of internationally harmonized safety requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ OFR-2013-001-0038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter supported purchasing standards at the final rule 
stage.\72\ This commenter expressed concern that organizations that 
rely on sales of standards may go out of business if they can't raise 
revenue from sales of standards. The commenter noted that corporate 
sponsors could be used to raise the revenue needed but that this might 
lead to standards that favored the corporate sponsor, whereas obtaining 
the revenue from the government could lead to the development of 
standards based on politics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ OFR-2013-001-0022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the concerns mentioned in comments from SDOs, one 
commenter stated that the SDOs whose business models are based on sales 
of their standards may have some negative economic impact in the short 
term.\73\ This commenter saw no long term negative economic impact on 
the SDOs, because requiring the standards to be posted as read-only 
files still allows SDOs to sell hard copies as business will still need 
to highlight and annotate the standard.\74\ Additionally, SDOs exist to 
fill a business needs that are separate from government regulation and 
these needs continue to exist even if read-only access is given to 
standards. In cases where the standard wasn't developed to become part 
of regulations, agencies should seek a license, although the commenter 
admitted that the licensing fees could be cost- prohibitive for small 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ OFR-2013-001-0029.
    \74\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While technological (and publication) costs continue to decrease, 
these

[[Page 66273]]

commenters addressed only the cost of making something available online 
and did not address costs associated with creating the standard or 
providing free access to it. OFR staff do not have the experience to 
determine how costs factor into development of, or access to, a 
standard for a particular regulated entity or industry. Thus, this rule 
doesn't specifically address the costs associated with an IBR'd 
standard, which allows the agencies flexibility to address cost 
concerns when exercising their authority to issue regulations.
    As we stated in our proposed rule, OFR is a procedural agency. We 
do not have the subject matter expertise (technical or legal) to tell 
another agency how they can best reach a rulemaking decision. Further, 
we do not have that authority. Neither the FRA, the FOIA, nor the APA 
authorizes us to review proposed and final rulemaking actions for 
substance. We agree that agencies should consider many factors when 
engaging in rulemaking, including assessing the cost of developing and 
accessing the standard. Thus, we are requiring agencies to explain why 
material is reasonably available and how to get it, and to summarize 
the pertinent parts of the standard in the preamble of both proposed 
and final rules.

Other Issues

a. Constitutional Issues
b. Copyright Issues
c. Outdated standards IBR'd into the CFR
d. Incorporation of guidance documents and the use of safe harbors
e. Indirect IBR'd standards
f. Data and studies used to create standards
g. Section-by-section analysis of the regulatory text

a. Constitutional Issues

    A couple of commenters suggested that our proposal was 
Constitutionally suspect, claiming that it violates Due Process, Equal 
Protection, and First Amendment rights.\75\ They claimed that the 
public's inability to access standards for free online creates due 
process concerns, because due process requires notice of obligations 
before the imposition of sanctions. Having to pay fees for standards 
creates obstacles and impacts notice, which in turn creates due process 
problems. They claimed there might be a First Amendment issue because 
the public can't discuss or criticize regulations if they don't know 
what they are. Finally they argued that equal protection and due 
process are jeopardized when some people can purchase the law and 
others can't. One commenter stated that access to the standards in 
Washington, DC is not sufficient when the rule applies nationwide, 
because people have to travel to DC to view the standard and traveling 
costs money. Therefore, they argued, OFR needed to take those travel 
costs into account when approving agency requests to incorporate 
documents by reference into the CFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ OFR-2013-0001-0029 and OFR-2013-0001-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Constitutional issues were raised in earlier documents as well. 
Commenters to the request for comments on the petition argued that the 
government could simply exercise the Takings Clause of the 5th 
Amendment.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 78 FR 60791 (October 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we don't speak for the Federal Government as a whole, we see 
no reason why the government would exercise the Takings Clause. 
However, we note that this rule continues to require that agencies 
provide us a copy of all documents they wish to IBR into the CFR. 
Agencies must also maintain at least one copy of all IBR'd standards 
for public inspection at their agency. They must also provide their 
contact information along with contact information for the OFR and the 
standards' publishers in the regulatory text. Anyone can contact any of 
these 3 groups with questions regarding access to the documents IBR'd 
by an agency into the CFR, so access is not restricted to the Office of 
the Federal Register in Washington, DC.
    Further, nothing in this rule prevents the public from discussing 
or criticizing any Federal regulations. By requiring agencies to add to 
the preamble a discussion of how to examine or obtain copies of 
standards referenced in their rulemaking documents, along with 
summaries of those standards, we are ensuring that members of the 
public have more information for determining if the summary is 
sufficient or if they need (or just want) to contact the agencies with 
questions on how to access the IBR'd standards.

b. Copyright Issues

    Several commenters claimed that once a standard is IBR'd into a 
regulation it becomes law and loses its copyright protection and, 
therefore, that IBR'd standards must be available for free online 
without any further discussion. Other commenters \77\ stated that the 
public is the owner and author of the regulations and thus has the 
right to know the law, relying on the Veeck case.\78\ At least one 
commenter stated that the law is in the public domain and therefore not 
``amenable to copyright.'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ OFR-2013-0001-0029.
    \78\ Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, 
Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002).
    \79\ OFR-2013-0001-0012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters appeared to argue that the Veeck case 
demonstrates that SDOs have survived and grown over the years despite 
not having copyright protection awarded by a court because SDOs still 
create and charge for standards even after the Veeck decision; that the 
complexity of the modern age requires that agencies standardize across 
the Federal government, thus compelling the use of standards; and that 
SDOs can annotate their standards and charge fees for those 
annotations. These commenters' conclusion seemed to be that SDOs will 
continue to create standards and push for their incorporation into 
Federal regulations. Therefore, OFR must require that only standards 
available for free online are eligible for IBR approval.
    One commenter referenced the NTTAA \80\ and stated that since this 
statute says agencies shouldn't use standards in a way inconsistent 
with applicable law, therefore if agencies can't use the standard 
without violating copyright law, then the agency shouldn't IBR that 
standard.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.
    \81\ OFR-2013-0001-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we stated in our NPRM, recent developments in Federal law, 
including the Veeck decision \82\ and the amendments to FOIA, and the 
NTTAA have not eliminated the availability of copyright protection for 
privately developed codes and standards that are referenced in or 
incorporated into federal regulations. Therefore, we cannot issue 
regulations that could be interpreted as removing copyright protection 
from IBR'd standards. We recommend that the responsible government 
agency collaborate with the SDOs and other publishers of IBR'd 
materials to ensure that the public does have reasonable access to the 
referenced documents. Therefore, in this final rule we require that 
agencies discuss how the IBR'd standards are reasonably available to 
commenters and to regulated entities. One way to make standards 
reasonably available, if they aren't already, is to work with copyright 
holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ One commenter stated that OFR needs to show that the 5th 
Circuit didn't consider specific arguments, and, that if we don't, 
we can't reject the decision of the court. See OFR-2013-0001-0021. 
We disagree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that since it is the text of standards that 
must be available (citing Veeck for the proposition that the law is not 
subject to copyright law), agencies should copy the text of IBR'd 
standards and place the

[[Page 66274]]

text online. In a footnote, the commenter suggested that OFR require 
agencies to place the text of their ``regulatory obligations'' in their 
online dockets. This way the ``text of the legal obligation and not the 
standard as such'' is available online for free.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ OFR-2013-001-0024 footnote 23 at page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We leave it to the agencies to determine if they should follow this 
commenter's suggestion. We do note that agencies requesting IBR 
approval must follow the requirements set out in part 51, including 
Sec.  51.9, requiring very specific information about the standard, so 
that the standard and ``regulatory obligations'' can be clearly 
identified.

c. Outdated Standards IBR'd Into the CFR

    A few commenters again mentioned that some of the standards IBR'd 
into the CFR were outdated or expressed concern that agencies were 
failing to update the IBR references in the CFR. The orderly 
codification requirements of the FRA and the ACFR prohibit us from 
amending another agency's regulations,\84\ so we cannot take unilateral 
action. Further, we don't have the authority to decide that a newer 
version of a particular standard serves the same purpose as an older 
version; that determination is solely for the agency. However, we 
continue to provide support and assistance to agencies that are 
implementing or updating regulations with IBR'd material. We contact 
agencies and let them know if we hear from someone that a standard is 
difficult to find. We also refer callers to our agency contacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 44 U.S.C. 1510 and 1 CFR part 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that two-thirds of IBR'd standards were 
published in 1995 or earlier, thus, these standards are no longer 
available except at the National Archives and Records 
Administration.\85\ The commenter suggested that to address this issue 
OFR needs to include a sunset provision in part 51 to limit the 
duration of an IBR approval or to require that agencies certify for 
each annual edition of the CFR that standards IBR'd are still 
available. From 1979 through 1982, we approved material IBR'd on a 
yearly basis, as part of a comprehensive review of all material IBR'd 
and a review of the overall approval process.\86\ We initially 
established the annual review for only 3 years, but it soon became 
clear that a one-year review was neither practical nor efficient. We 
chose not extend the program at the end of 3 years but to return 
instead to the original process.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ OFR-2013-001-0024.
    \86\ 44 FR 18630, as corrected at 44 FR 19181.
    \87\ 47 FR 34108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we stated above, the orderly codification requirements of the 
FRA and the ACFR prohibit us from amending another agency's regulations 
\88\ so it is not clear how the expiration of an IBR approval would be 
identified in the CFR without undermining orderly codification and 
without returning to an approval system that has already failed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ OFR-2013-001-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Incorporation of Guidance Documents and the Use of Safe Harbors

    While some of the commenters approved of our proposal and its 
rejection of the notion that IBR standards should be removed from 
regulations and incorporated into agency guidance,\89\ one commenter 
modified the argument and suggested that OFR needs to adopt the formal 
stance that ``incorporated standards do not create legal obligations, 
as such, rather identify appropriate means for achieving compliance 
with regulatory requirements that are independently and fully stated in 
public law.'' \90\ This commenter suggested that adopting this 
proposition would bring our requirements in line with the European 
Union's stance on incorporation by reference. The commenter then went 
on to describe the way the EU countries develop standards and 
recommended that the U.S. adopt that model of standards development. 
However, the OFR has no statutory authority to completely change the 
way standards are developed in the U.S. We continue to maintain that 
the explicit statutory language of section 552(a) applies when agencies 
request to IBR materials into the CFR. Therefore, we have no authority 
to approve IBRs of standards into agency guidance documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ OFR-2013-001-0030.
    \90\ OFR-2013-001-0024 at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter continued by stating that OFR cannot, in its 
regulations, allow materials that are copyrighted to become binding 
legal requirements through IBR. They also stated that OFR needs to 
accept the IBR of guidance documents that are not legally binding and 
limit the IBR'ing of required standards to ones that are available for 
free online.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Id. at page 2, OFR-2013-001-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter went on to state that section 552(a)(1) clearly 
allows for the IBR of guidance documents, stating that ``part 51's 
refusal to consider these IBRs is unprincipled and unjustified.'' \92\ 
This commenter then listed the merits of IBR'ing of guidance documents, 
for example, no copyright issues and ease for agencies to update the 
reference when the standards are updated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Id. at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agencies are not required to request IBR approval for guidance 
documents referenced in their regulations. Currently, if materials that 
are published elsewhere are referenced as guidance documents in 
regulatory text or a CFR appendix, agencies are not required to submit 
an IBR request; they must simply add information on how to obtain the 
guidance material in the regulatory text. This requirement is less 
stringent than IBR approval and we see no reason to change our policy 
at this time. While this commenter is correct that in the past we have 
approved IBR in limited instances for guidance documents, there has 
never been a requirement in our regulations that guidance documents 
must obtain IBR approval; that is because not all agency guidance 
documents or the materials referenced in those documents are published 
or referenced in the Federal Register. Regardless, any requests for IBR 
must still meet the requirements of part 51 and any changes to the CFR 
or a CFR appendix must publish in the Rules and Regulations section of 
the Federal Register. That publication requirement will increase the 
time it takes to update IBR'd guidance documents and may not provide 
the flexibility to update guidance the commenter hoped for.
    This commenter also suggested that we don't understand the law and 
that we believe that guidance documents aren't regulatory.\93\ However, 
we do understand the concept that guidance documents are not 
requirements and if agencies try to enforce them as binding, private 
entities can sue the agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Id. at page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the FRA and the APA require that documents of general 
applicability and legal effect be published in the Federal Register and 
codified in the CFR. In general, agencies are not required to codify 
their guidance documents, policy letters, or directives in the CFR and 
thus, they might not be published in the Federal Register.\94\ Nor

[[Page 66275]]

are they required to formally request approval for standards referenced 
in the CFR that are not binding requirements. OFR has long interpreted 
section 552(a)'s use of the term ``affected'' to be related to binding 
requirements that have an effect on parties. Thus, we haven't required 
that references in the CFR to standards for guidance purposes go 
through IBR approval. We do not have the staff or other resources 
needed to approve IBR requests for documents that are guidance rather 
than documents that are requirements. As we mentioned above, agencies 
can already reference those documents in the CFR without going through 
the formal IBR review process. Thus, is not clear why agencies would 
need IBR approval for these non-regulatory documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ ACUS Recommendation 76-2 (41 FR 29653, July 19, 1976) 
recommends that agencies publish their statements of general policy 
and interpretations of general applicability in the Federal Register 
citing 5 U.S.C. 522(a)(1)(D). This recommendation further recommends 
that when these documents are of continuing interest to the public 
they should be ``preserved'' in the CFR. 41 FR 29654. The 
recommendation also suggests that agencies preserve their statements 
of basis and purpose related to a rule by having them published in 
the CFR at least once in the CFR edition for the year rule is 
originally codified. Many agencies have not followed this 
recommendation, most likely because some of the material is 
published in the United States Government Manual or they find the 
cost prohibitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that there is no distinction between a 
regulatory standard and a safe harbor.\95\ This commenter stated that a 
safe harbor in regulatory text will bind the agency to accept actions 
that are within the safe harbor as compliance. Thus, the safe harbor 
will dominate as the compliance method. Therefore, this commenter 
believed that all requirements suggested for IBR'd standards (most 
importantly that they must be available for free online) also apply to 
safe harbors. We agree that this is a concern, however we don't see 
that this specific issue is covered by part 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ OFR-2013-0001-0029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Indirect IBR'd Standards

    At least 4 commenters raised the issue that some of the IBR'd 
standards also reference other standards in their text. A couple of 
these comments suggested that the OFR deny IBR approval unless all 
standards are available for free online, including those referenced 
within the standard the agency is seeking IBR approval for. At least, 
one of the commenters stated that obtaining IBR'd material can cost 
several thousands of dollars a year.
    As we stated in our proposed rule, our regulations have never 
contained any provision to allow for IBR of anything but the primary 
standards and, as a practical matter, we have no mechanism for 
approving anything but those primary standards. The OFR is a procedural 
agency and we do not have subject matter or policy jurisdiction over 
any agency or SDO. We must assume that agencies have fully considered 
the impact of any document (including material IBR'd) that they publish 
in the Federal Register. In many instances, agencies reference third-
party standards in their NPRMs, so both the general public and the 
regulated public can review and comment on those standards before they 
are formally IBR'd in the CFR. We do not review material submitted for 
IBR to determine if that material also has other materials included; we 
look only at the criteria set out in our regulations. Determining that 
an agency intends to require some type of compliance with documents 
referenced in third-party standards is outside our jurisdiction; 
similarly, we cannot determine whether or not the subject matter of a 
third-party standard is appropriate for any given agency.
    What these commenters suggested would require that OFR 
substantively review each standard IBR'd to determine if it references 
other standards and then determine if those standards are required to 
comply with the IBR'd standard and the agency's regulations. That is 
beyond the authority and subject matter expertise of this office and 
would increase the review time required to process IBR approval 
requests. Therefore, we continue our practice of reviewing approval 
requests only for standards directly IBR'd into the CFR.

f. Data and Studies Used To Create Standards

    At least 2 commenters suggested that a condition of IBR approval 
must be that data and studies relied on to create the standard must be 
available for free online during the comment period of the NPRM, citing 
Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus 486 F.2d 375 (DC Cir 1973). They 
also stated that agencies should be required in their NPRM preambles to 
``include specification of the means by which would-be commenters can 
gain access to the studies and data on which the standard proposed to 
be incorporated is based'' without incurring a significant fee.\96\ 
They claimed that without this requirement interested persons cannot 
meaningfully comment on an agency's NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ OFR-2013-0001-0024 and OFR-2013-0001-0029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The APA, other statutory authorities, and case law have continually 
stood for the proposition that the publishing agencies, not the OFR, 
are responsible for ensuring that the public has appropriate 
information to provide comments on their proposed rules. The task of 
ensuring agencies provide access to data and to the studies that were 
used to develop materials incorporated by reference is beyond our 
statutory authority and resources. Therefore, we decline to revise the 
regulations to require that the materials used to develop standards be 
available for free online.

g. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Regulatory Text

    Several commenters had comments on specific sections set out in our 
NPRM. We address those comments by section below.
Section 51.1(b)
    Some commenters suggested that we add the E-FOIA and the E-
Government Act \97\ to our list of authorities in Sec.  51.1(b), 
claiming that our refusal to do so ``reveal[s] OFR's regrettable 
indifference to the realities of the Information Age.'' \98\ It is not 
clear where these commenters would have us reference these statutes. 
Our statutory authority appropriately references section 552(a), which 
grants the Director the authority to approve agency requests for IBR 
into the CFR. If the commenters were focusing on the text of Sec.  
51.1(b), what they fail to take into account is that this section 
specifically lists authorities that directly relate to the requirement 
that certain documents be published in the Federal Register. Paragraph 
(b)(4) allows for us to review based on Acts other than the FRA that 
require publication in the Federal Register. Since this paragraph 
(b)(4) can be read broadly to include many different statutes, we do 
not believe we need to specifically reference these statutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Public Law 107-347 (2002).
    \98\ OFR-2013-0001-0029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 51.1(e)
    One commenter stated that paragraph (e) of Sec.  51.1 was confusing 
because it states that use of the phrase ``incorporation by reference'' 
by itself does not mean the Director has approved an agency request for 
incorporation by reference. The commenter suggested that this paragraph 
be removed.
    The CFR uses the phrase ``incorporation by reference'' throughout 
its titles even when this phrase does not mean incorporation by 
reference pursuant to section 552(a). For example, the Federal 
Acquisition regulations in Title 48 of the CFR and 40 CFR 1502.21 
(which discusses incorporating materials by reference into agency 
environmental impact statements) both use the phrase ``incorporation by 
reference'' in ways unrelated to the use of the ``incorporation by 
reference'' described, in section 552(a). Paragraph (e) clarifies that 
if the Director's

[[Page 66276]]

approval language is not linked to the IBR reference in the CFR, that 
use of the term IBR has not been approved by the Director and may be 
unrelated to section 552(a) and the regulations found in part 51. 
Therefore, because this phrase is used in multiple ways in the CFR, we 
decline to remove paragraph (e) from Sec.  51.1.
Section 51.5
    One commenter, when discussing Sec. Sec.  51.3 and 51.5, stated 
that our proposal would reduce ``reasonably available'' to formality 
that doesn't encourage agencies to comply with section 552(a) or with 5 
U.S.C. 553. They argued that OFR is not paying enough attention to the 
public's ability to comment on NPRMs (other commenters also suggested 
that the OFR should require rulemaking documents be understandable 
without the need for the reader to rely on the IBR'd material \99\). 
The commenter believed that a discussion of how the agency made the 
material reasonably available doesn't go far enough. This commenter 
recommended that we change the text to require that agencies explain 
what they propose to require in their rulemaking. Along this same line, 
another commenter wanted a detailed abstract of the IBR'd materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See, OFR-2013-0001-00024 and OFR-2013-0001-00032. One 
commenter alleges that it is a ``mere phantasm if the agency can 
meet the requirement by stating that a copy of the publication has 
been placed at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet . . .'', see 
OFR-2013-0001-0037. We can't assume, as this commenter appears to 
do, that agencies will willfully obstruct access to the standards 
they've IBR'd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is the responsibility of the agency issuing the regulations to 
ensure that it complies with the requirements of the APA. Our intent 
with these changes is to provide the public more information regarding 
standards IBR'd, both how to access these standards and to get a 
summary of what the standard is about. The OFR can't ensure that every 
agency complies with the requirements of the APA; we are not subject 
matter experts in all areas of federal law so we can't make a 
determination on whether an agency's preamble provides enough 
information for the public to thoughtfully comment on agencies' 
proposals. This commenter's suggested language would require OFR to do 
a substantive review of all preambles in rulemakings where the agencies 
propose to IBR materials into their regulations. This is beyond our 
authority; we can't do it for documents without IBR and nothing in 
section 552(a) gives us special authority to perform substantive 
reviews of rulemaking documents with IBR.
    One commenter expressed concerns that the requirement to summarize 
standards in preambles is not specific enough. This commenter wanted 
more specificity on what constitutes reasonable availability. The 
commenter said that requiring too much detail is a problem, because the 
summary doesn't replace the actual text of the standard and agencies 
shouldn't be placed in a position to argue or litigate whether there 
was enough detail in the summary. The summary should alert readers to 
go to the standard. We agree that this summary of the standard needs to 
give readers enough information to decide if they need to read the 
standard for more detail or not, thus we kept the regulatory text 
flexible to allow agencies to write these summaries in ways that best 
meet the needs of their readers.
    Another commenter, while agreeing that ``reasonably available'' 
might not mean free online, stated that it does mean more than the 
agency simply having a copy available for examination in its 
Washington, DC headquarters.\100\ This commenter stated that the OFR 
needs to define reasonably available and let the public comment on that 
proposed definition. It also stated that OFR needs to provide agencies 
with guidance on how we expect them to comply with this requirements. 
This commenter further urged that OFR define ``reasonably available'' 
differently, depending on where in the rulemaking process the 
regulation is. Thus, this commenter recommended that ``reasonably 
available'' be defined at the proposed rule stage to mean the material 
proposed to be IBR'd be available to review for free online. At the 
final rule stage, and while the rule is effective ``reasonably 
available'' would mean that IBR'd material could be purchased from the 
publisher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ OFR-2013-0001-0022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We decline to define ``reasonably available.'' Much like the 
request to define ``class of persons affected,'' we are concerned that 
any definition will fail because it is either too broad to be 
meaningful or too restrictive, impeding agencies' ability to work with 
SDOs and other publishers to make the material available to wide 
audience either during the comment period of a proposed rule or while a 
regulation is in effect. The absence of a too-broad or too-narrow 
definition allows agencies to maintain flexibility in making IBR'd 
materials ``reasonably available'' during the life-cycle of a 
regulation and their regulatory programs on a case-by-case basis to 
respond to specific situations.
    Another commenter stated that the proposed regulatory text in Sec.  
51.5 was too focused on the reasonable availability issue. This 
commenter claimed that the NPRM suggests that there are ``varying 
degrees'' of reasonable availability when in reality material is either 
reasonably available or it is not.\101\ The commenter objected to the 
proposed language in Sec.  51.5 because, the commenter claimed, that by 
requiring agencies to discuss how they worked with publishers to make 
material reasonably available, we are suggesting a link between 
reasonably available and free online. This commenter recommended 
changing the focus of the text from the reasonably available 
requirement to instead require that agencies discuss all the factors 
they considered, including availability, when proposing to IBR a 
standard. The commenter believed that this language better articulates 
federal policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ OFR-2013-0001-0026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 552(a) specifically mentions reasonable availability 
without addressing other factors agencies used to determine if they 
wished to request IBR approval for particular standards. Therefore, 
this section properly focuses on a discussion of how the materials are 
available. Nothing in this rule prohibits agencies from discussing, in 
their preambles, what factors they considered when determining if and 
what materials they would request approval for. Thus, we decline to 
revise this section to make this commenter's suggested changes.
    One commenter stated that using the term ``or'' instead of ``and'' 
in the proposed rule text violates the statute because the material 
must be made reasonably available under the statute.\102\ The commenter 
continued, stating that it's the Director who determines reasonable 
availability and not the agencies. Therefore, the proposed language 
puts the reasonable availability determination on the wrong party. The 
commenter assumes agencies will develop different criteria for 
determining whether something is reasonably available. The NPRM stated 
that agencies might not be able to IBR SDO standards if we require that 
they be available for free; the commenter disagreed with this 
statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ OFR-2013-0001-0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the commenter's assessment of this proposal. The 
OFR (including the Director) does not have the subject matter expertise 
or the familiarity with the affected parties to make a case-by-case 
analysis of ``reasonable availability.'' We must rely on the analysis 
of the agency. The revisions to this section now require

[[Page 66277]]

that agencies provide at least part of that analysis instead of simply 
asserting that the material is ``reasonably available.'' Nothing in the 
proposal removes the requirement that IBR'd materials be maintained at 
the agency and at the OFR. And, the summary provides information to 
people so they can determine if they want to review the IBR material at 
the agency or the OFR or elsewhere.
    One commenter supported our revisions to Sec.  51.5 because these 
requirements will bring attention to the availability issue and 
suggested that agencies will ``proactively seek to improve the 
availability of IBR materials throughout the rulemaking process.'' 
\103\ This commenter recommended that OFR strengthen this provision by 
removing the ``or'' and replacing it with an ``and.'' This would 
require agencies to discuss both the substance of the standard and how 
they worked to make the standard reasonably available. This 
recommendation is also consistent with ACUS' recommendation 2011-
5.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ OFR-2013-001-0030.
    \104\ 77 FR 2257 (January 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree that this provision should be strengthened so we replaced 
the ``or'' with an ``and.'' And, we have removed the requirement that 
the agency discuss, in the final rule, how the incorporated material 
was reasonably available at the proposed rule stage. We require, at 
both the proposed and final rule stages, that agencies include language 
in their rulemaking preambles that both discuss the availability of the 
standards and provide a summary of the standards themselves.
Section 51.7
    At least 2 commenters suggested that we remove the requirement that 
standards be technical in nature to receive IBR approval in an attempt 
to limit the number of printed Federal Register and CFR pages.\105\ One 
commenter also expressed a concern that by removing the requirement 
that IBR'd standards must be technical in nature, OFR is allowing 
agencies to remove essential requirements from the regulatory text so 
that the legal obligation is hidden within the IBR'd standard merely to 
save printed pages in the Federal Register. This commenter argued that 
agency regulations need to be sufficiently and adequately set out to 
allow the reader to know and be able to meet the regulatory 
obligations. This commenter claimed that OFR needs to add a provision 
to part 51 requiring that the IBR material be technical in nature and 
that it supplement the regulatory text, not be a substitute for it. The 
commenter also stated that OFR must review both the regulatory text and 
the standards to ensure the IBR material doesn't replace the 
requirements set out in regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ OFR-2013-0001-0024 and OFR-2013-001-0029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter was, in effect, suggesting that OFR conduct a 
substantive review of both the regulatory text and the standards. A 
review of this nature would require a substantive review of agency 
regulations, something that is beyond our authority, so, while we 
clarified Sec.  51.7(a)(2) to require that standards IBR'd be technical 
standards, we decline to make these suggested changes that would 
require us to review the materials to ensure that they didn't include 
regulatory obligations not set out in the regulatory text.
    Another concern raised by some of the commenters was that 
completely removing the requirement that IBR standards be technical in 
nature ``will spur further inappropriate incorporations by reference.'' 
\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ OFR-2013-0001-0029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At least one other commenter specifically referenced Sec.  51.7(a) 
and expressed concern that the proposal removed the requirement that 
IBR'd standards be technical in nature. The commenter stated that this 
requirement reduces the risk that agencies will IBR standards that are 
regulatory in nature. This commenter suggested that the requirement was 
the public-private equivalent of our prohibition on agencies IBR'ing 
their own publications.
    We understand these concerns regarding the proposed language, so we 
modified the language in Sec.  51.7(a)(2) to retain the original 
language of this paragraph, while modifying the structure to emphasize 
that standards cannot detract from the Federal Register publication 
system. So, much like our provision addressing agency-produced 
documents, these changes allow us the flexibility to work with agencies 
on the types of materials IBR'd.
    There were a couple of commenters who specifically referenced 
proposed revisions to Sec.  51.7, explaining what types of documents 
are eligible for IBR approval. One commenter objected to the language 
in Sec.  51.7(a)(3) claiming that OFR does not need to include 
requirements for usability in the regulations because the requirements 
seem print-focused and are irrelevant in the age of the Internet.
    Despite the commenter's attempt to show that the OFR is out-of-
touch with the information age, we still receive hard copies of the 
materials agencies IBR into the CFR. Thus, we decline to remove this 
paragraph entirely. We have modified the language slightly with the 
phrase ``as applicable'' to indicate to agencies that submit hard 
copies of their IBR'd material this requirement still applies. Further, 
the numbering and ordering requirement may still apply to electronic 
material. We are not unduly focused on print publications, but until no 
standards are available in print, we have to consider both print and 
electronic publications.
    Finally, we restructured paragraph (a) into a more logical order.

Regulatory Analysis

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and 
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below is a summary of our 
determinations with respect to this rulemaking proceeding.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    The rule was drafted in accordance with Executive Order 12866, 
section 1(b), ``Principles of Regulation'' and Executive Order 13563 
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' We sent the rule to OMB 
under section 6(a)(3)(E) of Executive Order 12866 and it was determined 
to be a significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule will not have a significant impact on small entities 
since it imposes requirements only on Federal agencies.\107\ Members of 
the public can access Federal Register publications for free through 
the Government Printing Office's Web site. Accordingly, the head of the 
agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ One commenter suggests that OFR needs to do a complete 
regulatory flexibility analysis on the issues surrounding IBR within 
the federal government, see OFR-2013-0001-0024 footnote 10 at page 
4. Because the only new action in this rule is to require that 
agencies provide more information in their preambles regarding 
IBR'ing of standards we do not believe that it has a monetary impact 
on small businesses or increases their burden. Therefore, we decline 
to follow the commenter's suggestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federalism

    This rule has no Federalism implications under Executive Order 
13132. It does not impose compliance costs on state or local 
governments or preempt state law.

Congressional Review

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). We 
will

[[Page 66278]]

submit a rule report, including a copy of this rule, to each House of 
the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States as 
required under the congressional review provisions of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1986.

List of Subjects in 1 CFR Part 51

    Administrative practice and procedure, Code of Federal Regulations, 
Federal Register, Incorporation by reference.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority at 5 
U.S.C. 552(a), the Director of the Federal Register amends chapter II 
of title 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 51--INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 552(a).


0
2. Revise 51.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  51.3  When will the Director approve a publication?

    (a)(1) The Director will informally approve the proposed 
incorporation by reference of a publication when the preamble of a 
proposed rule meets the requirements of this part (See Sec.  51.5(a)).
    (2) If the preamble of a proposed rule does not meet the 
requirements of this part, the Director will return the document to the 
agency (See 1 CFR 2.4).
    (b) The Director will formally approve the incorporation by 
reference of a publication in a final rule when the following 
requirements are met:
    (1) The publication is eligible for incorporation by reference (See 
Sec.  51.7).
    (2) The preamble meets the requirements of this part (See Sec.  
51.5(b)(2)).
    (3) The language of incorporation meets the requirements of this 
part (See Sec.  51.9).
    (4) The publication is on file with the Office of the Federal 
Register.
    (5) The Director has received a written request from the agency to 
approve the incorporation by reference of the publication.
    (c) The Director will notify the agency of the approval or 
disapproval of an incorporation by reference in a final rule within 20 
working days after the agency has met all the requirements for 
requesting approvals (See Sec.  51.5).

0
3. Revise 51.5 to read as follows:


Sec.  51.5  How does an agency request approval?

    (a) For a proposed rule, the agency does not request formal 
approval but must:
    (1) Discuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that 
the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably 
available to interested parties or how it worked to make those 
materials reasonably available to interested parties; and
    (2) Summarize, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the material 
it proposes to incorporate by reference.
    (b) For a final rule, the agency must request formal approval. The 
formal request package must:
    (1) Send a letter that contains a written request for approval at 
least 20 working days before the agency intends to submit the final 
rule document for publication;
    (2) Discuss, in the preamble of the final rule, the ways that the 
materials it incorporates by reference are reasonably available to 
interested parties and how interested parties can obtain the materials;
    (3) Summarize, in the preamble of the final rule, the material it 
incorporates by reference;
    (4) Send a copy of the final rule document that uses the proper 
language of incorporation with the written request (See Sec.  51.9); 
and
    (5) Ensure that a copy of the incorporated material is on file at 
the Office of the Federal Register.
    (c) Agencies may consult with the Office of the Federal Register at 
any time with respect to the requirements of this part.

0
4. In Sec.  51.7, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  51.7  What publications are eligible?

    (a) A publication is eligible for incorporation by reference under 
5 U.S.C. 552(a) if it--
    (1) Conforms to the policy stated in Sec.  51.1;
    (2)(i) Is published data, criteria, standards, specifications, 
techniques, illustrations, or similar material; and
    (ii) Does not detract from the usefulness of the Federal Register 
publication system; and
    (3) Is reasonably available to and usable by the class of persons 
affected. In determining whether a publication is usable, the Director 
will consider--
    (i) The completeness and ease of handling of the publication; and
    (ii) Whether it is bound, numbered, and organized, as applicable.
* * * * *

0
5. In 51.9, revise paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  51.9  What is the proper language of incorporation?

    (a) The language incorporating a publication by reference must be 
precise, complete, and clearly state that the incorporation by 
reference is intended and completed by the final rule document in which 
it appears.
* * * * *
    (c) If the Director approves a publication for incorporation by 
reference in a final rule, the agency must include--
    (1) The following language under the DATES caption of the preamble 
to the final rule document (See 1 CFR 18.12 Preamble requirements):
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of ___--.
    (2) The preamble requirements set out in 51.5(b).
    (3) The term ``incorporation by reference'' in the list of index 
terms (See 1 CFR 18.20 Identification of subjects in agency 
regulations).

    Dated: November 3, 2014.
Amy P. Bunk,
Acting Director, Office of the Federal Register.
[FR Doc. 2014-26445 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-02-P