Page:ASTM v. PRO (D.D.C. 2022).pdf/179

 #* 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. See also id. at 451 (“Faithfully reproducing the relevant text of a technical standard incorporated by reference for purposes of informing the public about the law obviously has great value.”) (emphasis added). 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 id. at 450.
 * 1) * Second Factor : The “express text of the law falls plainly outside the realm of copyright protection.” ASTM, 896 F.3d at 451. Here, the text published by Defendant is identical to text that was 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.
 * 2) * Third Factor : The incorporating regulation does not specify that only certain provisions of the text in ASTM D1412-93 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.
 * 3) * 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).
 * 4) * Conclusion : Defendant may fairly reproduce the text of ASTM D1412-93 (1997) in its entirety.
 * 5) ASTM D2013 1986 (1994):
 * 6) *Defendant identifies 40 C.F.R. § 60.17 (2011) as the incorporating by reference regulation, see Becker Decl. ¶ 57, Ex. 90 at 18, which incorporates ASTM D2013-72, 86 for appendix A: Method 19, Section 12.5.2.1.3. While the regulation incorporates ASTM D2013-72, 86, not the 1994 version that Defendant published, the text of the two standards is identical. See Pls. 2d SMF ¶ 35; Def. Statement of Disputed Facts at ¶ 35 (no objection); Def. Mot. at 10 (citing Def. 2d SMF ¶ 84). Appendix A: Method 19, Section 12.5.2.1.3 requires that when determining the overall reduction in potential sulfur dioxide emission, subject entities shall use ASTM D2013-72, 86 to prepare the sample. The regulation does not specify that only certain provisions of ASTM D2013-72, 86 are incorporated by reference into law, nor does it indicate which specific provisions of ASTM D2013-72, 86 are relevant for compliance with the regulation.
 * 7) * 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