Page:ASTM v. PRO (D.D.C. 2022).pdf/139

, see 40 C.F.R. § 75, App. A, 2.1.1.2(c), and analyzing “oil samples for percent sulfur content by weight in accordance with” a number of standards, including ASTM D4294-98, see id. § 75, App. A, 2.1.5. The regulations do not specify that only certain provisions of ASTM D4294 (1998) are incorporated by reference into law, nor does it indicate which specific provisions of ASTM D4294 (1998) are relevant for compliance with the regulation.
 * 1) * First Factor : There is no indication that Defendant stands to profit from republishing this standard; Defendant’s apparent purpose is to inform the public about the law and facilitate public debate. See ASTM, 896 F.3d at 449; Def’s 2d Mot. at 16. Defendant’s “attempt to freely distribute standards incorporated by reference into law qualifie[s] as a use that further[s] the purposes of the fair use defense.” ASTM, 896 F.3d at 449. Further, the incorporated standard provides information essential for a private entity to comprehend its legal duties, which weighs heavily in favor of permitting Defendant’s reproduction. See ASTM, 896 F.3d at 450.
 * 2) * Second Factor : The “express text of the law falls plainly outside the realm of copyright protection.” ASTM, 896 F.3d at 451. Here, the standard is incorporated into law without limitation such that “the consequence of the incorporation by reference is virtually indistinguishable from a situation in which the standard had been expressly copied into law.” Id. at 452. Accordingly, “this factor weighs heavily in favor of fair use.” Id.
 * 3) * Third Factor : The incorporating regulation does not specify that only certain provisions of this standard are incorporated by reference into law, nor does it indicate which specific provisions of the standard are relevant for regulatory compliance, suggesting that “a greater amount of the standard’s text might be fairly reproduced.” Id.
 * 4) * Fourth Factor : Defendant’s reproductions have not had a “substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the originals,” nor have Plaintiffs shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a meaningful likelihood of future harm.” Memo Op. at 30–36 (internal quotation and citation marks omitted).
 * 5) * Conclusion : Defendant may fairly reproduce this incorporated standard in its entirety.
 * 6) ASTM D4329 (1999):
 * 7) *The parties identify 49 C.F.R. § 571.5 (2014) as the incorporating by reference regulation, see Becker Decl. ¶ 57, Ex. 90; Wise Decl., Ex. 176, which incorporates the standard into 49 C.F.R. § 571.106. Section 571.106 requires that certain test standards be in accordance with three standards, including ASTM D4329-99, and that “[i]f multiple plastic brake tubing assemblies are tested, then their position in the machine should be rotated according to ASTM D4329–99.” 49 C.F.R. § 571.106, S12.7(b)–(c)(2). The regulation does not specify that only certain provisions of ASTM D4329 (1999) are incorporated by reference into law, nor does it indicate which specific provisions of ASTM D4329 (1999) are relevant for compliance with the regulation.
 * 8) * First Factor : There is no indication that Defendant stands to profit from republishing this standard; Defendant’s apparent purpose is to inform the public about the law and facilitate public debate. See ASTM, 896 F.3d at 449; Def’s 2d Mot. at 16. Defendant’s