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 |
|---|---|
ID: aiam5269OpenMr. Donald W. Vierimaa Vice President-Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria, VA 22314; Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Vice President-Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria VA 22314; Dear Mr. Vierimaa: This responds to your letter of October 19, 1993 with respect to the trailer conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108. You report that ' o ften a new tank trailer will be sold to a customer who will contract with another party to have a lining installed in the tank.' Because of the high heat used in the installation of the lining, retroreflective sheeting cannot be applied before the lining is installed. We believe that the trailer manufacturer is a more appropriate person for ensuring that its product meets the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 than the installer of the lining, or the owner of the trailer. We would like to suggest alternative methods of compliance, other than a direct application of retroreflective tape to the trailer sides, as a resolution of this problem. Standard No. 108 permits the use of reflex reflectors as an alternative to retroreflective sheeting. If the trailer manufacturer prefers retroreflective sheeting, the sheeting may be applied at a lower level if deemed 'practicable', or it may be applied to horizontal strips of aluminum that can be fastened to the sides of tank trailers and removed during the installation of the lining. You also state that 'non-tank trailers may be sold without conspicuity treatment when the owner wishes to contract the application of special paint and logo schemes.' Sale of a trailer under these circumstances, without its compliance with the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108, would be an apparent violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2539OpenMr. Jeffrey L. Link, Supervisor, Product Safety, Safety and Legislation Department, U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation, 13767 Freeway Drive, Santa Fe Springs, California 90670; Mr. Jeffrey L. Link Supervisor Product Safety Safety and Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 13767 Freeway Drive Santa Fe Springs California 90670; Dear Mr. Link: This responds to your February 23, 1977, letter asking whether thre proposed labeled satisfy the requirements for label identification found on Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120. A review of the labels you supplied indicates that you have used a different format than illustrated in our notice of February 7, 1977 (42 Federal Register 7140). For example, the amended Standard No. 120 does not require the words 'with the tires listed below' or even the word 'with' before the tire size. The deletion of such superfluous words from the label requirements of Standard No. 120 resulted from comments by manufacturers, particularly motorcycle manufacturers, that unnecessary word needlessly increase the size of the label.; The example of label information shown in S5.3 of the standard i intended only as a guide to manufacturers. A manufacturer can vary the illustrated format somewhat as long as the requirements of S5.3 are satisfied. Since the additional words on your label do not obfuscate the certification statement, the labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 and Part 567.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3190OpenThe Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd., Hiratsuka Plant, P. O. box 20, Hiratsuka-shi, Kanagawa-ken 254, Japan; The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd. Hiratsuka Plant P. O. box 20 Hiratsuka-shi Kanagawa-ken 254 Japan; Dear Sirs: Your September 10, 1979, letter to our Tire Division has been referre to me for reply, since you are requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119)/ You asked two questions in your letter. First, you asked whether the definition you offered for 'maximum speed' was correct. If it was correct, you stated that the tire could exceed the speed restriction shown o the tire at a lighter load, ad showed how the information could be set forth on the tire. The listing of varying maximum loads at different maximum speeds is not permitted to appear on the tire. Second, you asked if speed restricted tires could specify a speed restriction other than the 35, 50, and 55 mile per hour (mph) restrictions shown in the endurance test schedule of Standard No. 119. The answer to this question is no.; Regarding you first question, you defined a tire's maximum speed as the highest speed at which a tire can carry the maximum single load that is molded on the tire sidewall.' This definition is an acceptable one for tires with a speed restriction listed for them. However, you went on to note that if this definition was acceptable, the a tire could list varying maximum loads at varying maximum speeds. Such a listing is expressly prohibited by the language of Standard No. 119.; S6.5 of Standard No. 119 specifies that each tire subject to th Standard shall be marked with the information that is set forth in the (sic) following paragraphs. Paragraph (d) of S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressures for single load tires, the type of tire about which you are inquiring, to appear as: Max load * * lbs. at * *psi cold. Paragraph (e) of S6.5 requires that a speed restriction on the tire appear only as: max speed * *mph. Hence, a single load tire can be labeled with only one maximum load and only one maximum speed.; Your second question was whether a manufacturer could restrict th speed of a tire subject to Standard No. 119 to a speed other than the three speed restrictions shown in Table III of the Standard. Paragraph S6.1 requires all ties to pass the endurance test requirements of the Standard, and Table II shows the load and speeds to which the tires will be subjected during the endurance test. If the tire being subjected to the endurance test does not qualify for the special speeds and load as one of the three speed restricted tires shown in the table or as a motorcycle tire, the tire would be tested at the speed and load shown under the heading 'All other'. This would mean that the tire's speed restriction would be ignored for purposes of the endurance test, and it would be tested as if it were a non-sped restricted tire. Such conditions, and no tire which fails to pass the endurance test can be sold in the United States. As a practical matter, therefore, speed restrictions other than the three shown in Table III of the Standard are not recognized by this agency.; The three speed restrictions shown in Table III of the Standard wer adopted from descriptions of three types of speed restricted tires sued by the United States tire industry in 1972, when the agency was initially promulgating Standard No. 119. If your company would like to add another speed restriction to those shown in Table III, you should file a petition for rulemaking with this agency requesting an amendment to Standard No. 119.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4342OpenMs. Dianne Black, Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance, and Product Development, Jaguar Cars, Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, NJ 07650; Ms. Dianne Black Engineering Manager Legislation Compliance and Product Development Jaguar Cars Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia NJ 07650; Dear Ms. Black: Your letter to Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 114 has been referred to me for response. This response is based on your letter, and a telephone conversation of March 17, 1987, between Mr. Edward Stumpkey of Jaguar and Mr. Kenneth Rutland of this agency clarifying certain matters raised in your letter. I regret the delay in this response.; Standard 114, *Theft Protection, requires that each vehicle subject t it must have a key-locking system which must prevent not only normal engine activation, but also either steering or forward self-mobility or both when the key is removed.; You mention a system intended to meet the standard, but indicate tha 'for security reasons,' you are reluctant to supply specific details on that system. Without reference to specific data, you state that your system meets paragraph S4.2(a) of Standard 114, that is, removing the key from the ignition prevents normal engine activation.; You go on to say that the microprocessing systems that control vehicl operations will not function when the driver removes the ignition key. Therefore, you state, you meet one of the conditions in S4.2(b) of the Standard, that is , removing the key must prevent forward self-mobility of the vehicle.; Based on the information you supplied, NHTSA can not agree that you key- locking system meets either requirement of S4.2(b). As I understand your description of Jaguar's system, deactivating the engine is the means by which you assert you prevent vehicle forward self-mobility. If a manufacturer could comply with the S4.2(b) with respect of preventing forward self-mobility by preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a), S4.2(b) would be redundant. Paragraph S4.2(b) requires an added safeguard with respect to forward self-mobility, such as a transmission lock or other means, to prevent a vehicle from moving under its own power should the engine somehow be activated without inserting the key.; Therefore, preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a) will no meet the condition in S4.2(b) of preventing vehicle forward self-mobility. If Jaguar has some means other than deactivating the engine to prevent forward self-mobility, its system may be acceptable. Otherwise, Jaguar must add some means to meet at least one of the conditions in S4.2(b).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4804OpenMr. Dean J. Long Design Engineer VDO-YAZAKI Corporation l773 Star-Batt Drive Rochester Hills, MI 48309; Mr. Dean J. Long Design Engineer VDO-YAZAKI Corporation l773 Star-Batt Drive Rochester Hills MI 48309; "Dear Mr. Long: This responds to your letter asking about requirement concerning two proposed automotive instrument panel telltale warnings. I apologize for the delay in this response. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Your first proposed telltale design is for '4 wheel antilock brake application.' The design would include a picture of a skidding car and the letters '4W ABS.' You asked whether this telltale would fulfill applicable requirements or whether the ISO 'ABS' symbol must be used. Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays, requires that new vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. In addition, certain other standards, including Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems, include requirements relating to vehicle displays. Standards No. l0l and No. l05 include several requirements for telltales indicating malfunction in an antilock brake system. Copies of these standards are enclosed for your convenience. Among other things, these standards specify the following identifying words or abbreviation for an antilock malfunction telltale: 'Antilock, Anti-lock or ABS.' The standards also permit additional words or symbols to be used for the purpose of clarity. See section S5.2.3 of Standard No. l0l and section S5.3.5(a) of Standard No. l05. It is unclear from your letter whether your proposed telltale would indicate 'malfunction' in an antilock brake system, since you describe it as indicating '4 wheel antilock brake application.' If the telltale is for antilock malfunction, it would appear to meet the requirements specified in Standards No. l0l and No. l05 for identifying words or symbols, since it includes the abbreviation 'ABS,' and the other words/symbols can be considered to be for the purpose of clarity. Of course, the telltale would also need to meet the other requirements specified in those standards, e.g., size of letters, color, etc. If the telltale does not indicate antilock malfunction, e.g., it only indicates when the antilock system is activated during braking, no requirements would apply to the telltale. Unless a particular telltale is listed in Standard No. l0l (or is covered by another standard), no requirements apply to such telltale. If the telltale does not indicate antilock malfunction, however, I would suggest that you consider whether drivers would confuse the telltale with the required telltale for antilock malfunction. Your second proposed telltale is for warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. Your design would include an outline of an engine and the word 'CHECK.' You asked whether the word 'CHECK' is necessary, and whether the engine outline is an approved ISO symbol. NHTSA does not have any requirements for a telltale warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. However, we suggest that you check with the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board as to whether they have any requirements (or are developing requirements) concerning such a telltale. You may contact those agencies at the following addresses: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources Certification Branch 2565 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48l05 Air Resources Board Certification Section 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 9l73l I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3836OpenMs. Doris A. Lindley, Purchasing Agent, Hayes Equipment Corporation, P.O. Box 526, 150 New Britain Avenue, Unionville, CT 06085; Ms. Doris A. Lindley Purchasing Agent Hayes Equipment Corporation P.O. Box 526 150 New Britain Avenue Unionville CT 06085; Dear Ms. Lindley: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requestin information on the tire registration requirements applicable to your company as a manufacturer of new trailers. Per your request, I have enclosed a copy of the Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Savings Authorization Act of 1982. You also asked for confirmation that your company, as the manufacturer of trailers, has sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment on trailers sold under your company's name. Your understanding is correct.; The responsibility of the various parties for recording and keepin records of the tire identification numbers of new tires are set forth in 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*. Section 574.10 reads as follows:; >>>Each motor vehicle manufacturer, or his designee, shall maintain record of the new tires on or in each vehicle shipped by him or a motor vehicle distributor or dealer, and shall maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires. These records shall be maintained for a period of not less than 3 years from the date of sale of the vehicle to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.<<<; As you can see from this language, it is the vehicle manufacturer tha has the sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment on or in the vehicle and records of the first purchasers of those vehicles for purposes other than resale. This responsibility remains even if the tires on the vehicle are changed by a vehicle dealer or distributor, unless that dealer or distributor voluntarily notifies the vehicle manufacturer of the tire change. As long as the vehicle is sold with the tires that were shipped with it as original equipment, dealers and distributors of the vehicle have no responsibilities for either registering the tires or keeping any records. Should those dealers and distributors substitute tires on the vehicle other than those shipped as original equipment, they would have some responsibility for registering the tires with the tire manufacturer, per section 574.9, but it would be the tire manufacturer that would be responsible for keeping the records, not the dealers and distributors.; Should you have any further questions relating to tire registratio requirements, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3837OpenMs. Doris A. Lindley, Purchasing Agent, Hayes Equipment Corporation, P.O. Box 526, 150 New Britain Avenue, Unionville, CT 06085; Ms. Doris A. Lindley Purchasing Agent Hayes Equipment Corporation P.O. Box 526 150 New Britain Avenue Unionville CT 06085; Dear Ms. Lindley: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requestin information on the tire registration requirements applicable to your company as a manufacturer of new trailers. Per your request, I have enclosed a copy of the Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Savings Authorization Act of 1982. You also asked for confirmation that your company, as the manufacturer of trailers, has sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment on trailers sold under your company's name. Your understanding is correct.; The responsibility of the various parties for recording and keepin records of the tire identification numbers of new tires are set forth in 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*. Section 574.10 reads as follows:; >>>Each motor vehicle manufacturer, or his designee, shall maintain record of the new tires on or in each vehicle shipped by him or a motor vehicle distributor or dealer, and shall maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires. These records shall be maintained for a period of not less than 3 years from the date of sale of the vehicle to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.<<<; As you can see from this language, it is the vehicle manufacturer tha has the sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment on or in the vehicle and records of the first purchasers of those vehicles for purposes other than resale. This responsibility remains even if the tires on the vehicle are changed by a vehicle dealer or distributor, unless that dealer or distributor voluntarily notifies the vehicle manufacturer of the tire change. As long as the vehicle is sold with the tires that were shipped with it as original equipment, dealers and distributors of the vehicle have no responsibilities for either registering the tires or keeping any records. Should those dealers and distributors substitute tires on the vehicle other than those shipped as original equipment, they would have some responsibility for registering the tires with the tire manufacturer, per section 574.9, but it would be the tire manufacturer that would be responsible for keeping the records, not the dealers and distributors.; Should you have any further questions relating to tire registratio requirements, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4899OpenDavid A. McClaughry, Esq. Harness, Dickey & Pierce 5445 Corporate Drive Troy, MI 48098; David A. McClaughry Esq. Harness Dickey & Pierce 5445 Corporate Drive Troy MI 48098; "Your ref: 0364-50108 Dear Mr. McClaughry: This responds to your lette of July 11, l991, with respect to the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to a sale of motor vehicles to the United States Navy. The Navy has proposed specifications for the design of a zero-emission motor vehicle which may not meet some of the FMVSS. You are aware of the exemptions that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides for military vehicles, and that l5 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(C) provides, upon the Administrator's grant of a petition, for low-emission motor vehicles. These raise certain questions which you have asked us to answer. First, you would like our interpretation of 'military vehicle.' The definition of 'military vehicle' is that contained in section 571.7(c): a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. This means any vehicle that the military purchases. However, if the contractual specifications require compliance with the FMVSS, the military vehicle must be manufactured to conform to the FMVSS. You have asked whether the exclusion extends 'only for FMVSS or all safety standards.' The exclusion of section 571.7(c) is only from the FMVSS. However, vehicles that are owned by the United States Government bear Government registrations. They are not subject to State licensing laws, and, therefore, are exempt from State vehicle safety standards. You have also asked if there are other military safety standards that the vehicles must satisfy. We are unaware of any military safety standards, but, if such standards exist, they would be standards of the Department of Defense, and not those of the Department of Transportation. Finally, you have asked whether your client should attempt to obtain a low-emission vehicle temporary exemption under section 1410(a)(1)(C). Because of the existing exclusion from FMVSS compliance, we see no need for such an exemption if the vehicle is sold exclusively to the Navy or another branch of the military. However, if your client intends to sell the military-specification vehicle to an entity other than the Armed Forces of the United States, it must either comply with all applicable FMVSS at the time of manufacture and sale, or be exempted under one of the four subsections of section 1410(a)(1). Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5516OpenMr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Manager of Government Relations Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A. P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252; Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Manager of Government Relations Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A. P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana CA 92799-5252; Dear Mr. Shetler: We are responding to your FAX of March 29, 1995, t Taylor Vinson of this Office. On May 6, 1994, we advised you that a motorcycle headlamp with an upper beam projector on one side of the vertical centerline and a lower beam projector on the other did not comply with Standard No. 108. You now ask whether the headlamp would comply if an exterior housing were installed on the headlamp which 'provides the appearance of two headlamps.' This modification in the design does not result in a complying headlamp. Regardless of its exterior appearance, the lamp remains a single headlamp incorporating both an upper and lower beam projector. Since both projectors are within a single headlamp, both projectors must be on the vertical centerline, as specified in Table IV of Standard No. 108. Even if the upper and lower beam projectors were in separate units, neither in itself would be a complying headlamp, and hence not a two-lamp system that could be mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Standard No. 108 does not permit motorcycles to have a headlamp system with asymmetrical beam location. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5544OpenSenior Product Manager Philips Lighting Company 200 Franklin Square Drive Somerset, NJ 08875; Senior Product Manager Philips Lighting Company 200 Franklin Square Drive Somerset NJ 08875; Dear Mr. Mack: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1995 requesting a confirmation of your interpretation that 'Philips Color Clear (TM) Halogen Headlights . . . are in compliance with FMVSS-108.' The product in questions 'appears to be colored when not in use' but 'when lighted it produces white light as defined by J579C.' You have provided a report from ETL Testing Laboratories which 'indicates that the color of the light is identical to that of a standard halogen headlight.' There is no definition of white light in SAE J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1978. We believe you mean SAE J578d Color Specification for Lighting Devices, September 1978 which does contain a definition expressed in chromaticity coordinates. The report you supplied indicates that the Philips lamp provides a light within the color coordinates for white when equipped with a red, black, blue, or white insert. As Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the color of glass lamp lenses or bulbs, only the light emitted from the lamp, we confirm your conclusion that the Philips Color Clear (TM) headlamp has been designed to conform to the color requirements of Standard No. 108. We appreciated your visit to NHTSA on April 26 to demonstrate the lamp with its various inserts. I understand that the light produced by the lamp, and by a standard headlamp, appeared identical to the naked eye in a side by side comparison. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
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.