NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam2463OpenMr. Dudley E. DeWitt, Manager/R & D, Great Dane Trailers, Inc., Lathrop Avenue, P.O. Box 67, Savannah, GA 31402; Mr. Dudley E. DeWitt Manager/R & D Great Dane Trailers Inc. Lathrop Avenue P.O. Box 67 Savannah GA 31402; Dear Mr. DeWitt: This responds to Great Dane Trailer's November 4, 1976, questio whether the 'controlled lockup' exception in S5.3.2 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, is available to a manufacturer who equips a 'tri-axle' trailer suspension with one set of wheel speed sensors on the center axle (or, alternatively, on the front axle) and one antilock valve and logic module that meters air pressure to the two rearmost axles.; Your question appears to be similar to questions about tandem-axl suspensions that prompted an interpretation of the 'controlled lockup' exception to the 'no lockup' requirements of S5.3.1 and S5.3.2. A copy is enclosed for your information. You will note that the closing statement in the interpretation states that '. . .the controlled lockup exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.' It is left to the manufacturer to decide what placement of the sensors will provide the best performance.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt |
|
ID: aiam2199OpenMr. Jackson Decker, Chief Product Engineer, E. D. Etnyre & Co., 200 Jefferson Street, Oregon, IL 61061; Mr. Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer E. D. Etnyre & Co. 200 Jefferson Street Oregon IL 61061; Dear Mr. Decker: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1976, requesting informatio as to the criteria used to distinguish between a 'new' or a 'used' chassis, in regard to the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 567 and 49 CFR Part 568.; You described a situation in which a chassis-cab comes to you 'from th field,' lacking both a certification label and an incomplete vehicle manual, under the claim that it is used, with the absence of a certification label explained by a statement that 'a previous body was mounted and removed by the customer and the vehicle was not presented for resale by a distributor or dealer.' You also add that 'the vehicle reportedly has had extremely limited or no use.'; It seems to us that the facts you are describing constitute a fairl obvious misrepresentation by your customer in order to circumvent the requirements of the standards. Even if the implausible allegation that the customer 'mounted and removed' a body were true, it would not remove the requirement for the vehicle to bear a certification label. Our regulations do not limit the labeling requirement to the narrow language of section 114, any vehicle upon completion must be permanently labeled.; Furthermore, for a vehicle to be 'used' today, it must be titled an registered under the laws of some State. Your letter does not discuss this, but we would assume that any vehicle whose owner cannot produce title and registration as a completed vehicle was never completed and used within the meaning of our regulations.; For these reasons, we would expect you as a final-stage manufacturer t treat as new a chassis-cab brought to you for completion under the conditions you described. If the chassis-cab were properly certified in a manner that evidenced prior use, or the customer were able to produce legitimate title/registration documentation showing significant previous use as a completed vehicle, the answer would of course be different.; Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2033OpenMr. Hidekimi Inoue, Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd., 350 Fifth Avenue, New York 10001; Mr. Hidekimi Inoue Bridgestone Tire Co. Ltd. 350 Fifth Avenue New York 10001; Dear Mr. Inoue: This responds to your letter of July 14, 1975, concerning th permissibility of placing arrow-shaped markings on tire sidewalls to show the location of the treadwear indicators.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 specifies certai labeling requirements for passenger car tires. Standard No. 119 specifies similar labeling for tires designed for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. Although the arrows which you have described are not required by either of these standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to such markings provided that none of the required label information is omitted.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3272OpenMr. Robert Fondiller, President, WOW! Corporation, 200 West 58th Street, New York, NY 10019; Mr. Robert Fondiller President WOW! Corporation 200 West 58th Street New York NY 10019; Dear Mr. Fondiller: This responds to your March 18, 1980, letter to this agency in whic you posed some questions about a 3-wheeled vehicle your company plans to produce. First, you wanted to know if a 3-wheeled vehicle would be classified as a car, a motorcycle, or some other vehicle. Second, you asked if the vehicle could be licensed for street and/or highway use. Third, you asked if replacing the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel would result in the vehicle being classified as a 3- wheel or 4-wheel vehicle, and what effect, if any, classification as a 4-wheel vehicle would have on the answers given to the first two questions.; This agency classifies all 3-wheeled motor vehicles as motorcycles pursuant to the definition of 'motorcycle' given in 49 CFR S 571.3. The pertinent part of that section reads:; >>>'Motorcycle' means a motor vehicle with motive power having a sea or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.<<<; We determine the number of wheels on a vehicle simply by counting thos wheels. Hence, if you were to replace the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel, the vehicle would then be a 4-wheeled vehicle and could not be classified as a motorcycle. Such a vehicle would be classified as a passenger car.; The classification of a vehicle is important since it affects th Federal motor vehicle safety standards with which the vehicle must comply If a vehicle is a motorcycle, it must comply with the following safety standards: 108, 111, 112, 115, 120, 122, 123, and 127. If, on the other hand, a vehicle is a passenger car, it must comply with the following standards: 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 124, 127, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 219, and 302. As you see, the requirements for passenger cars are more stringent than for motorcycles.; I have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by this agency which gives a brie summary of the requirements of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. I have also enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain copies of our standards and other regulations.; This agency does not license any vehicles for street or highway use. W specify performance requirements, and any motor vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as being in compliance with all applicable safety standards as of the date of its manufacture. If the vehicle complies with these requirements, we specify no further steps which must be taken.; If you have any further questions concerning motor vehicle safety o need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3788OpenMichael J. Schmitt, Counsel, Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA, 6555 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630; Michael J. Schmitt Counsel Yamaha Motor Corporation USA 6555 Katella Avenue Cypress CA 90630; Dear Mr. Schmitt: This is in response to your letter asking for an interpretation on th permissibility of using two type 2A1 headlamps mounted symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, 'Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (sic) states in S4.1.1.34 that a motorcycle may be equipped with one of the following headlamp systems, one of which is the 'A' type headlamp system described as follows:; >>>Type 1A1 or Type 1A . . . . 1 lamp and either Type 2A1 or Type 2A . . . . 1 lamp<<<< The standard is specified this way because the 2A1 lamp is a lower bea lamp and the 1A1 is an upper beam lamp. While the 2A1 lamp does have an 'upper beam', photometrically it provides only 'fill-in' light. The 1A1 lamp provides the high output upper beam. It is not possible to achieve safe upper beam light using only the 2A1 lamp, regardless of how many are used. Therefore, your proposed headlighting application would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108.; Sincerely, Barry Felrice, Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking |
|
ID: aiam3622OpenMr. Max Peck, Superintendent, Thatcher Unified Schools, District No. 4, P.O. Box 610, Thatcher, AZ 85552; Mr. Max Peck Superintendent Thatcher Unified Schools District No. 4 P.O. Box 610 Thatcher AZ 85552; Dear Mr. Peck: This is in response to your letter of September 30, 1982, enclosing 'petition for exemption...on behalf of Capps and Lancaster Service Center'. The petition concerns a single motor vehicle consisting of the body of a 1974 Dodge school bus which has been removed from its original chassis and attached to a new 1981 International Harvester chassis.; This agency does not regulate the use of motor vehicles. That is matter for State governments. We do enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and grant exemptions as appropriate consistent with our authority.; I regret that the exemption process is not available in your case. Par 555 is intended to cover the future vehicle production of bona fide motor vehicle manufacturers, and not a single conversion, performed in the past, by what appears to be a service garage. Under our regulations, the combination of an old body upon a new chassis results in a new motor vehicle required to meet the motor vehicle safety standards in effect when the chassis was manufactured. Compliance is especially important in this instance because of all the school bus safety standards that have become effective since the bus body was manufactured in 1974, and which affect its structure and that of its seats.; This means that Capps and Lancaster are technically in violation of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for which a penalty of up to $1000 may be imposed. We do not intend to pursue this, however, unless other violations come to our attention. However, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting Capps and Lancaster to make them aware of their responsibilities in order to prevent further violations by that company.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2930OpenMr. R. L. Ratz, P.E., Product Safety Engineering, Grumman Flxible, 970 Pittsburgh Drive, Delaware, OH 43015; Mr. R. L. Ratz P.E. Product Safety Engineering Grumman Flxible 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware OH 43015; Dear Mr. Ratz: This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1978, asking whether th front and rear clearance lamps on your Model 870 Urban transit coach comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; The front clearance lamps on the Model 870 are combined with the tur signal lamps, side marker lamps, and side reflex reflectors. The units are located 'on line with and just outboard of each rectangular headlamp,' with lens center 32 inches above the road surface, at a point that appears to be at the vehicle's overall width. The rear clearance lamps are combined with the stop lamps and rear side marker lamps, their horizontal center lines 64 inches above the road surface, at approximately the vehicle's overall width. Front and rear identification lamps are mounted at the top of the vehicle.; The general rule expressed by Table II of Standard No. 108 is tha clearance lamps must be mounted 'to indicate the overall width of the vehicle ... and as near the top thereof as practicable.' But a partial exception is provided by S4.3.1.4.: When the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle.'; This means that the mid-body location of the rear clearance lamp i acceptable since the rear identification lamps are at the extreme height of the vehicle. But the exception does not extend to the front clearance lamps. While Standard No. 108 allows the manufacturer to determine what location is 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle', there will be instances when the overall width of the vehicle will not be indicated by the highest location. In such instances the best location will be the one that most closely approximates the intent behind the requirement - to indicate the overall width.; Specifically with reference to the Model 870, it appears to us that th close proximity of the combination lamp to the headlamp may result in the effectiveness of the clearance lamp being impaired by the brightness of the headlamp, and that the most practicable location sufficiently indicating the overall width of the vehicle, would be at the outer edges of the body directly below the windshield.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4372OpenTak Fujitani, Program Manager, Inspection Services, Office of Fleet Administration, 1416 -10th- Street, 2d Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tak Fujitani Program Manager Inspection Services Office of Fleet Administration 1416 -10th- Street 2d Floor Sacramento CA 95814; Dear Mr. Fujitani: This letter responds to your inquiries addressed to Joan Tilghman of m staff. Your letters concern buses purchased by the State of California, and manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division (Champion). You inform us that Champion is a final stage manufacturer of vehicles built on a Ford chassis. You have rejected delivery of these vehicles because you assert that they do not comply with either California or Federal motor vehicle regulations. This response addresses only those issues arising from Federal requirements.; As I understand your letters, you pose two principle questions. First you ask whether classifying an incomplete vehicle as a 'chassis' rather than as a 'chassis cab' means that a final stage manufacturer can not alter the original chassis manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You assert that Champion's altering of the GVWR on a vehicle classified as a 'chassis' is a noncompliance under 49 CFR sections 567.5 and 568.4 which you may use as grounds for rejecting delivery of Champion's vehicles.; Your second question involves data set out in your letter of April 14 suggesting that Champion's certified GVWR for these vehicles is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, the rated cargo load, and 150 lbs. times the vehicles' designated seating capacity. You state that this circumstance is a second noncompliance with Federal regulations upon which you have rejected delivery of Champion's buses.; >>>*The Cutaway Chassis/Chassis Cab Question*.<<< In both your letters, you refer to provisions of 49 CFR 567.5 an 568.4, and to a 1977 Federal Register document (42 FR 37814, 37816, July 25, 1977). You state your interpretation of these 49 CFR provisions as 'mean(ing) that final stage manufacturers (who build on RV cutaways) are not authorized to alter the (GVWR) imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for certifying a greater load carrying capaci(ty) without altering axle components to handle the extra load.' As I understand it, when you speak of an RV cutaway you mean a vehicle chassis with an incomplete occupant compartment, intended for completion as a recreational vehicle. For any incomplete vehicle (including a cutaway or chassis cab), Part 568 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide a document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the vehicle's compliance status. This document is *not* a certification.; If the incomplete vehicle is other than a chassis cab, the final stag manufacturer who builds on the incomplete vehicle must certify its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). On the other hand, the certification process is different if an incomplete vehicle meets the agency's definition of 'chassis cab.' The Federal Register document to which you refer amended 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 to conform with a court decision holding that NHTSA could not require a final stage manufacturer to make the 'sole certification' of compliance for a vehicle built on a chassis cab. As a consequence of this decision, NHTSA established a dual certification scheme for such vehicles in which the chassis cab manufacturer makes one certification statement in each of three categories, and the final stage manufacturer makes corresponding statements depending on how the final stage manufacturer affects any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).; Under this dual certification scheme, the original chassis ca manufacturer may provide instructions telling a final stage manufacturer how to complete a vehicle so that it conforms with applicable FMVSS. The final stage manufacturer has the choice of either conforming his work to the chassis cab manufacturer's instructions and shifting the burden under Part 567 of certifying compliance to the chassis cab manufacturer, or deviating from those instructions, and assuming the certification burden for himself. Further, the final stage manufacturer must certify compliance respecting any FMVSS for which the chassis cab manufacturer makes no representation.; While you are correct that in the 1977 Federal Register document th agency decided to exclude RV cutaways from the definition of 'chassis cab,' the only effect of this exclusion is that dual certification requirements do not apply to vehicles completed on an RV cutaway.; Therefore, the answer to your first question is that a final stag manufacturer may change the GVWR for any incomplete vehicle, irrespective of whether he builds the completed vehicle on an RV cutaway or a chassis cab. However, if the final stage manufacturer changes the GVWR for the vehicle, it must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS at this new GVWR. Compliance with Standards No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, and No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* might well be affected by an increase in the GVWR. The final stage manufacturer is required to exercise 'due care' when certifying that its vehicle complies with all safety standards at this increased GVWR. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has asked the final stage manufacturer of these vehicles to provide the data and other evidence that were the basis for Champion's certification of compliance at this higher GVWR.; >>>*Champion's Certified GVWR Calculation*.<<< Part 567 of NHTSA regulations sets out requirements for affixing certification label or tag to a motor vehicle. Section 567.4(g)(3) of that Part states that the certified GVWR:; >>>'...shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120.'<<<; In your April letter, you supply weightmaster readings for the tw Champion motor vehicles that are the subject of your inquiry. While Champion certifies the GVWR for both these vehicles at 12,000 pounds, you indicate that according to your S567.4(g)(3) calculation, the sums are 12,147 pounds and 12,580 pounds. This agency considers vehicle overloading a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle and for the motoring public, and NHTSA may take appropriate remedial action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, laden with its intended cargo load, exceeds the manufacturer's GVWR. NHTSA's Office Of Vehicle Safety Compliance is investigating this matter further.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1170OpenMr. Neal Gilleran, Product Manager Motorcycles, Chaparral Division, Armco Recreational Products, Inc., 5995 North Washington Street, Denver, Colorado 80216; Mr. Neal Gilleran Product Manager Motorcycles Chaparral Division Armco Recreational Products Inc. 5995 North Washington Street Denver Colorado 80216; Dear Mr. Gilleran: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, concerning Standar No. 123 in which you reference a discussion with Mr. Vinson of this office and ask whether a neutral gear indicator must be provided on motorcycles manufactured on or after September 1, 1974.; Paragraph S5.2.2 *Display illumination and operation* states 'If a item of equipment listed in Table 2, Column 1, is provided, the display for such item shall ... illuminate as specified in Column 2, and shall operate as specified in Column 3'.; One of the two equipment items listed in Table 2 is 'Neutra indication'. However, Paragraph S5.2.2 does not require that the item be provided, only that, if a manufacturer provides it, it shall be a green display lamp and it shall illuminate when the gear selector is in the neutral position.; You are right that this interpretation is at variance with the preambl statement that 'Illumination of the neutral position has been deemed essential'. We are considering whether rulemaking action should be taken on this subject.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4688OpenMr. Donald W. Vierimaa Vice President-Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Vice President-Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria Virginia 22314; "Dear Mr. Vierimaa: This is in response to your association's reques that this office review the most recent revision of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's (TTMA) Recommended Practice Number 56, 'Trailer Vehicle Identification Number.' After that review, we have the following comments. Please note, however, that these comments do not constitute any sort of NHTSA approval or endorsement of the TTMA's Recommended Practice. The TTMA Recommended Practice appears to provide correct information about NHTSA's vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number-Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115). However, in several instances, the Recommended Practice goes beyond what is required by NHTSA's VIN regulations to recommend one particular means be used to assign a section of the VIN, when NHTSA's regulations leave the assignment of that section to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. Examples of the TTMA recommendations going beyond the NHTSA regulations may be found in the explanations provided in Part 13.0 on the Vehicle Descriptor (Second) Section Code, Part 14.0 Check Digit (Third) Section Code, and Part 15.0 Vehicle Indicator (Fourth) Section Code. While TTMA is free to make these recommendations, it may be helpful for your members to recognize the distinction between VIN information that is required by NHTSA, and therefore must follow an exact format according to Federal law, as opposed to matters that are within the discretion of the assigner of the VIN, and for which the TTMA provides one suggested means by which the requirement(s) may be fulfilled. We offer the following comments on particular sections of this recommended practice: Part 6.0 Definitions The definitions of 'body type,' 'line,' 'make,' and 'series' are not identical to the definitions in Title 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, since this section of your recommended practice states that the definitions in Part 6 'are used in NHTSA regulations,' you may wish to note that NHTSA does not define the terms 'production sequence,' and 'type of trailer' in its regulations. Part 9.1 Location This part should note that 49 CFR Part 567.4(d) requires certification labels (which must include VINs) to be affixed 'to a location on the forward half of the left side, such that it is easily readable from outside the vehicle without moving any part of the vehicle.' Part 11.0 VIN Content You may wish to note that the content requirements in this part of the recommended practice are a paraphrase and explanation of NHTSA's VIN content requirements, set forth at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements. 16.0 References Please note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued a VIN system information bulletin dated July 1985. I am enclosing a copy of it. Please feel free to reproduce this information and provide it to your members. They may also receive it directly from NHTSA by writing to us. If there are any further questions or concerns, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.