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: aiam0493OpenMr. Louis P. Spitz, Executive Director, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Louis P. Spitz Executive Director American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 1828 L Street N.W. Suite 500 Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Spitz: Thank you for your letter of November 9, 1971, in which you expresse concern over the requirement in our Certification regulations (36 F.R. 19593, October 8, 1971) that all vehicles, including those manufactured in two or more stages, have a vehicle identification number on their certification label.; You stated that your major concern was that the manufacturers would b 'confused', and 'would further add to the problems of vehicle identification experienced by the Motor Vehicle Administrators.' Your letter did not, however, specify how or why our regulations would 'add to the problems.' With reference to a telephone conversation of November 4 with Mr. Dyson of our Chief Counsel's Office, you declined a request that you supply specific suggestions for modification of the regulation, on grounds that 'this could be ultimately viewed as presumptive on our part.'; I would like to clarify some points concerning this requirement. Th requirement of placing a vehicle identification number on each certification label has existed since our first Certification regulations went into effect on September 1, 1969, and the amended regulations that become effective January 1, 1972 (to which you refer) contain no change whatever in that requirement. The reason why the VIN came to your attention as a separate proposal was that our March 17, 1970 notice, in which we proposed changes in the way we regulate multistage vehicles, had omitted the requirement, largely through oversight. The legal requirements for public notice required us to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, in order to retain the VIN on the labels, where it has been since September 1969.; We have not attempted in this motor vehicle safety regulation t regulate the form of the vehicle identification numbers on vehicles other than passenger cars. We have, in effect, left the situation exactly as it has been since September 1, 1969, when the Certification regulations first went into effect: we require that each vehicle have on its permanent label a 'vehicle identification number.' We chose then (as we have since) to leave the form of the number to the manufacturer, in the first instance, subject to whatever State regulations might be in force, and in accordance with whatever guidelines he might choose to follow. While this policy has not solved the problems of the motor vehicle administrators, it is not at all clear to us how it could have added to them.; As you know, we are working closely with State officials on the proble of standardizing vehicle identification numbers, in connection with our highway safety program standard on motor vehicle registration. We would like very much to have your ideas on how we can deal with these problems through our Traffic Safety Programs.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam4983OpenMr. Allan Schwartz President, Tron Industries, Inc. 9130 Wiles Road, Suite 142 Coral Springs, FL 33067; Mr. Allan Schwartz President Tron Industries Inc. 9130 Wiles Road Suite 142 Coral Springs FL 33067; "Dear Mr. Schwartz: This responds to your letter of April 16, 1992, t Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for 'an opinion why the State of Louisiana has not adopted the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive accessory lighting.' Lumitron is described as 'an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product.' You state that it is 'legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle.' You further state that both the Florida Highway Patrol and Kevin Cavey of this agency 'confirmed' your findings that Lumitron 'falls under' Standard No. 108. However, the State of Louisiana has 'not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting.' It appears that authorities in Louisiana believe Lumitron is legal but it has to be approved by the Commissioner. You have asked us for 'a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that state.' Contrary to your assumption and those of the officials you mention, Lumitron is not covered by Standard No. 108. The only aftermarket equipment directly regulated by the standard is equipment intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as headlamps. Such is not the case with Lumitron. Standard No. 108 was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We have interpreted that Act as prohibiting the installation on a vehicle of aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that, in the words of the statute, 'render inoperative in whole or in part' any of the vehicle's required lighting equipment. We understand that Lumitron casts a light on the pavement under the vehicle. We would, of course, be concerned if the intensity of that light served to mask the intensity of such required lighting items as turn signal and stop lamps, or served to distract other drivers so that the lamps required lamps might be considered partially inoperative. Regulation of aftermarket equipment such as Lumitron is within the jurisdiction of each State where Lumitron is sold and used, and the Commissioner in Louisiana may proceed as he deems fit. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but if you are interested in how the laws of other jurisdictions may affect Lumitron, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2154OpenMr. Thomas H. Hanna, Vice President, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, 320 New Center Building, Detroit, Michigan 48202; Mr. Thomas H. Hanna Vice President Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association 320 New Center Building Detroit Michigan 48202; Dear Mr. Hanna: This is in further response to your letter of November 12, 1975, askin whether this agency considers Standard 105-75 on hydraulic braking systems to be preemptive of State regulations concerning brake wear warning devices. You asked the question in light of the proposed uniform State regulation requiring such devices recently adopted by the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission.; There are presently no requirements in the Federal motor vehicle safet standards dealing directly with the subject of brake wear indicators or warning devices. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standards on braking performance were intended generally to cover this aspect of performance, analogously o the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in *Motorcycle industry Council v. Younger*, No. CIV S74-126 (E.D. cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul*, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is 'whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field.' Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as *Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and *Chrysler v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499, %11-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is 'of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'; the NHTSA has determined that the issuing of requirements for brak wear indicators by the States does not conflict with or otherwise impair our present regulation of braking systems, and that brake wear indicators are not within the intended scope of the present Federal safety standards. We therefore conclude that the existing standards are not preemptive of such State regulations. You should be aware that the agency is actively proceeding with rulemaking development work in this area, and may within the next year issue requirements that would alter these legal relationships.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0169OpenMr. H.J. Hempel, Vice President, Interamerican Motor Corporation, 14721 Calvert Street, Van Nuys, California 91401; Mr. H.J. Hempel Vice President Interamerican Motor Corporation 14721 Calvert Street Van Nuys California 91401; Dear Mr. Hempel: This is in reply to your letter of May 27 in which you reques information necessary to obtain a D.O.T. number and import 'Pneumant' tires. The information furnished below concerns only those requirements of the Department of Transportation.; Regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 110(e) of National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. S1391 *et seq.*, 1399(e)) require any manufacturer, assembler, or importer of a motor vehicle before offering a motor Vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent upon whom service of all processes, notices, orders, decisions, and requirements may be made.; The manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires is therefore required to designat an agent as prescribed in the regulations (49 C.F.R. S351.45) and I enclose a copy of them, as well as a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for your information.; Please note that these regulations require the designation to be mad in a specific manner. The designation should contain the following:; >>>(1) a certification by the signer of the designation that it i binding on the manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation by the manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires at the place and time where it is made,; (2) the full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address of the manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires,; (3) trade names, or other designations of origin of the products of th manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires which do not bear its legal name,; (4) a provision that the designation remains in effect until withdraw or replaced by the manufacturer of 'Pneumant' Tires,; (5) a declaration of acceptance duly signed by the designated agent and; (6) the full legal name and mailing address of the designatio agent.<<<; In addition, the designation should be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent for the manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires, and this authority should be so indicated.; In your letter you state that it is your understanding that 'all tire used in this Country are subject to approval which will be given in form of a D.O.T. number.' This is incorrect. There is no provision in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which provides that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are to be approved by the United States Government. On the contrary, under this Act the manufacturer o(sic) the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment bears the responsibility for complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards promulgated pursuant to the Act, and, pursuant to Section 114 of the Act for certifying that his product so complies. In the case of tires, the applicable standard is Standard No. 109 and I enclose a copy of it with applicable amendments for your reference. Standard No. 109 contains requirements for new pneumatic tires for passenger cars, and in order to meet the requirements of the Act, 'Pneumant' tires must comply with Standard No. 109. Furthermore, the manufacturer of these tires must certify in the prescribed manner that such tires so comply.; The 'D.O.T. number' to which you refer is required by Section 201 o the Act and the labelling section (S.4.3 and 'Figure 1') of Standard No. 109. As specified in the standard, the letters 'D.O.T.', when permanently molded into or onto the tire so that the tire is conspicuously labelled on both sidewalls, indicate pursuant to S.4.3(1) and Figure 1 of Standard No. 109, that the tire has been manufactured to conform to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This satisfies the certification requirement referred to above.; The code mark *number* is included as part of the label (as illustrate in Figure 1) pursuant to Section 201 of the Act, when the tire contains a brand name other than the name of the manufacturer, and is included for the purpose of permitting the seller of the tire to identify the manufacturer to the purchaser upon his request.; A code mark number con be obtained from the Department o Transportation by any tire manufacturer on request, but is only necessary when a name other than the manufacturer's is used on the tire. Such a request should be directed to Secretary of Transportation, Attention: Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, National Highway Safety Bureau, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20591. Issuance of the code mark number by the Department of Transportation in no way indicates approval by the government that tires manufactured by the one to whom it is issued meet Federal requirements. As indicated above, the code mark number is to be used purely for labeling purposes.; I am also enclosing a copy of Federal Highway Administration Impor Regulations, (19 C.F.R. S12.80) which are promulgated jointly with the Treasury Department pursuant to Section 108(b) (3) of the Act for your information.; Should you have further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider,Acting Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam1328OpenMr. H. W. Gerth, Ass't. Vice President, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. H. W. Gerth Ass't. Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive P.O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1973, concerning th conformity of an emergency feature of Mercedes-Benz's interlock system to S7.4.3 of Standard No. 208.; The feature you describe would permit the engine starting system to b operated without belt use for a period of 3 minutes after an activation knob inside the engine compartment is depressed. If the vehicle stalls, the driver would have to leave his seat, open the hood, depress the knob, close the hood, and return to his seat, at which point the interlock would be deactivated for the 3-minute period. This bypass feature would apparently supplement other convenience aspects provided pursuant to S7.4.3.; After review of the Mercedes system we have determined that it woul not result in bypassing the interlock in situations where that would not be permissible under S7.4.3 or S7.4.4. We therefore conclude that it is an allowable system and that it may be installed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3315OpenMr. Brian Gill, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 100 W. Alondra Blvd., P.O. Box 50, Gardena, CA 90247; Mr. Brian Gill American Honda Motor Co. Inc. 100 W. Alondra Blvd. P.O. Box 50 Gardena CA 90247; Dear Mr. Gill:#This responds to your letter of April 22, 1980, askin two questions about Standard No. 101-80, *Controls and Displays*.#Your first question concerns whether a display incorporated in the tachometer instrument face that shows which gear position has been selected by the automatic transmission control lever is an 'informational readout display.' You explained that the display 'consists of 5 stacked transparent screens on which are printed 'D', '2', 'N', 'P', 'R' to identify the transmission control lever positions. Each screen is illuminated by an incandescent bulb which is energized selectively through contacts at the control lever.'#The display which you have described is not an informational readout display. Section 4 of the standard defines 'informational readout display' as 'a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed.' As explained in the June 26, 1978, preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 101-80, the agency did not want to inhibit the development of electronic 'readout' panels which present the driver with specific information concerning vehicle and environmental conditions affecting safety. The preamble further described these devices as displays 'capable of exhibiting information and warning with word messages and not with symbols.' The device you have described uses symbols instead of words and conventional incandescent bulb technology instead of electronic technology and thus is not an informational readout display.#The display you have described is a gauge. Section 4 of the standard defines 'gauge' as 'a display that is listed in S5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale.' Section 5.1 and Table 2 do not identify the automatic gear position as a telltale. Likewise, an automatic gear position display does not meet the definition of 'telltale.' Section 4 of the standard defines 'telltale' as 'a display that indicates, by means of a light-emitting signal, the actuation of a device, a correct or defective functioning or condition, or failure to function.' In this case, the display does not indicate the activation of a device since a transmission is always activated. Likewise, the display does not indicate that the transmission is functioning correctly or improperly or has failed to function. Section 5.3.3 provides that the light intensity of each gauge shall be continuously variable. The display you have described does not comply with section 5.3.3, since it only has two light intensities.#Your second question concerns 'a display adjacent to the shift control lever which shows the transmission shift level sequence. The identifying characters 'P', 'R', 'N', '2', 'D', are shown on a transparent screen, the position selected is indicated by a colored panel which moves with the shift control level.' You explained that the 'colored panel *only* is illuminated when the headlights are switched on showing which position is selected, the other positions on the display are not illuminated.' [Emphasis in the original]#You asked whether the display is exempt from the illumination requirements of the standard because it is 'a hand- operated control mounted upon a...floor console' or because it is a 'telltale.' Section 5.1 and Table 2 of the standard classify an automatic gear position indicator as a display. Thus, an automatic gear position indicator cannot be a 'hand-operated vehicle control.'#Further, the display that you have described is not a 'telltale.' As explained above, an automatic gear position display is a gauge. According to your description, the display '*only* is illuminated when the headlights are switched on.' Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires the light intensity for gauges to be continuously variable. Since the illumination for the display you have described apparently is not variable, it would not comply with the standard.#If you have any further questions, please let me know.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1282OpenMr. Jerry R. Freed, 3115 Prairie, Elkhart, IN 46514; Mr. Jerry R. Freed 3115 Prairie Elkhart IN 46514; Dear Mr. Freed: Your letter of September 24, 1973 has been referred to the Region Office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, by the Federal Trade Commission.; Enclosed is a copy of Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information an Cost Savings Act, Public Law 92-513. This information should provide you and your counsel with adequate information to resolve your problem. If, after having gone over the law, you still have technical questions regarding this law, please forward them to Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel, N40-30, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. I am forwarding a copy of your letter to Mr. Schneider's office for appropriate action.; If this office can be of further assistance to you in the future please let us know.; Sincerely, Gordon G. Lindquist, Regional Administrator |
|
ID: aiam2857OpenMr. D. L. Haines, The B. F. Goodrich Company, Engineered Systems Division, P.O. Box 340, Troy, OH 45373; Mr. D. L. Haines The B. F. Goodrich Company Engineered Systems Division P.O. Box 340 Troy OH 45373; Dear Mr. Haines: This responds to B. F. Goodrich's August 2, 1978, question whether th specified temperature for brake burnish in S6.1.8.1 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, should be maintained by reducing maximum vehicle speed during snubs even if the reduced maximum speed does not appear among the snub conditions listed in Table IV of S6.1.8.1.; The answer to your question is yes. The snub conditions listed in Tabl IV represented the agency's best estimate of appropriate speeds for obtaining the specified burnish temperature, given the state-of- the-art of brake technology when the standard was issued. If you have under development a brake design that achieves the specified burnish temperature at a lower speed, it would be correct to reduce vehicle speed below the 40-mph level specified in Table IV to achieve and maintain that temperature.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4080OpenThe Honorable Ted Stevens, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Stevens: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Kimberl Hallenbeck of Fairbanks, Alaska, concerning our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since we are responsible for Federal regulations on school bus safety.; Your constituent asked whether our requirements for safety belts appl to the used school buses purchased by her company. As explained below, the answer is no.; We contacted Ms. Hallenbeck's company, Wilbur & Son, on February 13 t obtain more information about her inquiry. Wilbur & Son explained that it purchased two used 1980 large school buses for its shuttle service which had been certified by their manufacturer as meeting our school bus safety standards. The company has been requested to install safety belts in those vehicles, but believes this is unnecessary. The company requested us to clarify our requirements for safety belts on large school buses (i.e., school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds). We appreciate this opportunity to do so.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) i responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles, including school buses. NHTSA does not require safety belts in large new school buses because we issued a safety standard in 1977 (Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*) to require those buses to provide improved crash protection to passengers through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that school children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.; Although we have determined that a safety standard *requiring* safet belts in those buses is not warranted at this time, NHTSA has tentatively determined that an amendment to Standard No. 222 might be necessary to set performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on large new school buses. We recently issued such a proposal. If it is adopted, we would require manufacturers to ensure that safety belts voluntarily installed on new school buses meet performance criteria established by our safety standards. We emphasize that such a requirement would apply to the manufacture of new school buses only, and would not apply to persons retrofitting safety belts on large school buses already in use. A copy of our rulemaking notice is enclosed.; We are enclosing a copy of a report issued by NHTSA entitled 'Safet Belts in School Buses' (June 1985), which might be of interest to your constituents. In addition, we are providing your constituents with a copy of Safety Standard No. 222, and information sheets which describe our motor vehicle safety standards generally and how to obtain copies of individual safety standards or regulations.; I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact m office if we can be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1778OpenMr. C. H. Waterman, President, C. H. Waterman Industries, White Pond Road, Athol, MA 01331; Mr. C. H. Waterman President C. H. Waterman Industries White Pond Road Athol MA 01331; Dear Mr. Waterman: We have received your letter of January 7, 1975, and a notic concerning your petition will appear shortly in the *Federal Register*.; Although we will not identify the manufacturer of the basic vehicle i the notice, your letter with that information will be part of the public docket. Section 567.4(g)(1) requires that the name of the 'actual assembler' of the vehicle be placed on the vehicle certification label which must be affixed before the vehicles are offered for sale. Notwithstanding your modifications to the vehicles we regard the Dutch manufacturer as the 'actual assembler' who must be identified as such on the label. (The same regulation requires your corporate name to appear directly below the name of the assembler.); If your review of Section 555.9(c)(1) and Section 567.4(g) raises an questions about the content of the label or your responsibilities, I will be happy to answer them.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, 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.