I wanted to bring up the H.R. - Pro Codes Act, which was mentioned during yesterday's ICC Industry Advisory Committee meeting. I apologize for the short notice, and please feel free to postpone this discussion if we need to.

This bill amends Title 17 of the U.S. Code (Copyright Law) to clarify the copyright status of building codes and standards incorporated by reference into law when a law cites a private standard instead of reproducing its full text.

Key provisions:

Copyright protection: Privately developed technical standards (like the I-Codes or NEC) retain copyright even when incorporated into law.

Public accessibility: Standards organizations (SDOs) must provide free, online access to incorporated standards in accessible (Section 508 compliant) formats with searchable tools.

Read-only access: SDOs may require user registration or terms acceptance, but access must be free, and user data cannot be misused.

Burden of proof: Anyone claiming an SDO failed accessibility requirements must prove it.

GAO study: A report will examine the cost of accessing standards for government entities and ways to reduce these costs.

Implications for us:

Free access: We’d gain online, up-to-date access to referenced model codes and standards, reducing confusion over enforceable versions.

Improved transparency: Code compliance, education, and client reviews become easier with uniform nationwide access.

Usability limits: Access may be “view only,” preventing downloads or printing, which isn’t ideal for workflows needing annotations or offline use.

Higher costs elsewhere: SDOs might raise prices for manuals, training, or certifications to offset lost sales revenue.

Strain on funding: With reduced sales, SDOs’ ability to update codes or gather diverse input could slow, potentially impacting our residential design work.

This bill balances copyright and public access, leaning toward greater accessibility while preserving copyright protections. For designers, it ensures free access to incorporated codes, benefiting professionals, educators, and students. However, reduced funding for standards could affect code updates or stakeholder input, which are critical to our work.

My recommendation is to support this in principle but closely monitor its implementation.
 
My rationale is:
The bill aligns with our goals at AIBD of improving public and professional understanding of building codes.

Enhanced access advances our professional education and compliance quality.

Because it preserves copyright incentives for SDOs, it does not undermine the standards ecosystem outright.

However, I believe AIBD should advocate for usability standards (e.g., permitting controlled downloads or designer-friendly interfaces) during rulemaking or agency comment periods.

Therefore, I move:
Policy Statement on the “Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes Act” (H.R. 4009)

Be it resolved, the American Institute of Building Design (AIBD) supports the goals of the “Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes Act,” which promotes transparency and public access to building standards that have the force of law. The Act appropriately balances the public’s right to read adopted codes with the need for ongoing support of organizations that develop and maintain these technical standards.
Be it further resolved, AIBD encourages Congress and standards organizations to take further steps to ensure that design professionals can reference and apply these publicly incorporated standards within design documents and compliance materials without undue copyright restrictions. Broader accessibility, combined with practical usability, serves both public safety and the professional practice of building design.