Turn --- public access to standards is key to the administrative state --- the plan is worse.

Nina Mendelson, “Private Control over Access to Public Law: The Perplexing Federal Regulatory Use of Private Standards,” Michigan Law Scholarship Repository, 03-01-2014, https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/887/

And to ensure accountability, we need at least as much—usually greater—public access to quasi-legislative actions as to more narrowly focused decisions, where more process may be available. Legislative and quasilegislative actions are among the core actions of modern government, elections are critical for accountability, and a citizen’s ability to cast an informed vote in a democracy depends on meaningful public access.

In the modern administrative state, partly in response to limited electoral accountability, we have devised a range of accountability mechanisms to ensure that an agency’s action is not an abuse of its authority, is consistent with the law, and is properly democratically responsive. The need for public access to rules, and to IBR rules specifically, has to be assessed in the context of these evolving mechanisms of accountability. For agency rules in general, public access must be sufficient to support a person’s ability to participate in and seek revision of agency decisions and to demand that agencies account for their actions through that process, through judicial review, and through White House and congressional oversight. Thus, meaningful public access to rules must denote widespread and free—or extremely low-cost—access. At a minimum, this means the sort of free access currently provided over the internet and at public and depository libraries.