0

The eCFR (online version of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations) sometimes includes illustrations such as charts, diagrams, or sample forms. Are these non-text contents actually part of the CFR?

example

Edit: another nifty example: this swimming pool slide depiction at 16 CFR § 1207.5(d)(2)(i)

pool ladder depiction

Improve this question
1
  • An interesting case is cigarette warning labels. 21 CFR 1141. There the image is not merely a more efficient way to communicate information (which is often also explained in text), the image is the law itself. For whatever reason (possibly the unwieldy number of images, in color too), these images are not included in the CFR, but are instead incorporated by reference
    – Naftali Tzvi
    Commented Jul 22 at 7:31

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5

Yes.

You can view the PDF of the print version of your example Appendix to Part 1016. The figure you link to is found at p. 565 of 12 CFR Ch. X.

And you can also find the same figure in the original publication in the Federal Register: Vol. 76, No. 245 (21 December 2011), p. 79042.

Or for the slide image, see Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 12 (19 January 1976):

enter image description here

See also: see Can bills (the documents of laws/legislation) have pictures? Or text only? Can images become part of the legal code?

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    One notices (on the same page as the slide) a 'table' as well. These seem to be fairly common place, even though they also aren't plain text.
    – Naftali Tzvi
    Commented Jul 22 at 5:03
0

Yes, these images are part of the Code of Federal Regulations. They appear in the print version. (Jen helpfully provides a link to this.)

"Forms and illustrations" are submitted for publication in the Federal Register by including with the document "a clear and legible original form or illustration, or a clear and completely legible reproduction approximately 8 1/2 by 11 inches". 1 CFR § 18.10. This would include documents submitted for inclusion in the Code of Federal Regulations pursuant to 1 CFR § 21.1.

However, these diagrams do not have the same legal weight as the text of the CFR does. 44 USC § 1510(e) provides:

The codified documents of the several agencies published in the Code of Federal Regulations under this section, as amended by documents subsequently filed with the Office and published in the daily issues of the Federal Register, shall be prima facie evidence of the text of the documents and of the fact that they are in effect on and after the date of publication. (emphasis added)

Therefore, images and diagrams are a part of the CFR and are included in the print editions, but unlike the text they arguably do not constitute prima facie evidence of the law.

Improve this answer
10
  • They illustrate the text in such a way to make it less misunderstandable - a good graphic can tell what is meant by saying "The handrail shall be parallel to the steps and 4-6 inch in distance..."
    – Trish
    Commented Jul 22 at 21:18
  • @Trish Yes, they typically do. Rarely, you will even see flow-charts. But some pictures, like cigarette warning labels (see above), or like the OSHA pictograms at 29 CFR § 1910.1200 Appendix C.2.3.2 do far more than that. They are part and parcel of the legal mandate, and they convey legal information that text practically never could.
    – Naftali Tzvi
    Commented Jul 22 at 22:54
  • 1
    For 44 USC § 1510(e), are you sure that "text" here is interpreted literally, so as to exclude figures? I can also imagine it being interpreted more broadly as meaning "content". Is there case law one way or the other?
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Jul 23 at 3:14
  • 1
    If it does exclude figures, then what is the practical effect of those figures not being prima facie evidence of the law? Suppose for instance that the FDA was to sue a tobacco company for having improper warning labels that did not match the images in 21 CFR 1141. Are you saying that in order to prove in court that the law required such a label, it would not suffice for them to introduce the relevant volume of the Federal Register? What could they introduce instead?
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Jul 23 at 3:19
  • 1
    A share the doubt that "text" would be interpreted so narrowly in this context. The mere fact that a word is given one meaning in one context is not at all a strong argument that is has the identical meaning in another context in U.S. law.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jul 23 at 23:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.