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: aiam4578OpenPeter J. Yanowitch, Esq. Messrs. Davis, Markel, & Edwards 66 West Flagler Street, SUite 608 Miami, FL 33130 Re: Importation of Porsche 959; Peter J. Yanowitch Esq. Messrs. Davis Markel & Edwards 66 West Flagler Street SUite 608 Miami FL 33130 Re: Importation of Porsche 959; "Dear Mr. Yanowitch: This is in reply to your letter of February 27 l989, requesting a response by March l0 as to whether the Department would permit the importation of a Porsche 959 pursuant to l9 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(v). Specifically, you represent a non-resident of the United States who wishes to import such a vehicle, and operate it on the public roads of this country during the l-year period. You have asked for confirmation in writing that if the vehicle is imported on this basis that 'the Department of Transportation would not have jurisdiction to impound, confiscate, destroy, require a bond, or otherwise take any action with respect to the vehicle, so long as the non-resident fully complies with the provisions' of 12.80(b)(l)(v), and, further, that the Department 'would not object to the non-resident driving this vehicle on the road' while it is in the United States. You also state that your client is prepared to submit 'sworn testimony that he will comply with the requirements of the United States Customs Regulations.' Under l9 CFR 12.80(b)(l), each vehicle offered for introduction into the Customs territory of the United States shall be denied entry unless the importer files a declaration which declares that '(v) The importer...is a non-resident of the United States, is importing the vehicle...primarily for personal use for a period not exceeding l year from the date of entry, will not sell it in the United States during that period, and has stated his passport number and country of issue...in the declaration.' This provision was adopted in recognition of international treaties to which the United States is a party, which are intended to assure the free flow of international road traffic. However, this agency does not construe either the regulation or the treaties as conferring an absolute right upon any non-resident to import a non-conforming vehicle if considerations of policy dictate a determination that such entry would not be in the interests of the United States. Chief among these considerations is whether the importer has previously imported a motor vehicle in violation of the importation regulations. Accordingly, we wish to review your client's declaration before the time the vehicle arrives at the port of entry. I enclose a copy of our Form HS-7 for its completion and return to us. We request that a photocopy of the title or other certificate of ownership be enclosed as well. We also ask that a statement be attached to the declaration, so that it becomes a part of it and subject to penalties in the event that it is false or misleading, in which your client discloses whether he has ever imported into the United States any motor vehicle manufactured on or after January l, l968, and, if the answer is affirmative, to provide the make, model, and port and approximate date of entry, and the name of the importer or consignee as it appeared on the declaration. Finally, we also request an affirmation from your client that he will not sell the vehicle, or offer it for sale, either before or during its stay in the United States, and that he will export it at the end of the l-year period. When we have received and reviewed the declaration and statement we shall be pleased to consider this matter further, and we shall answer your questions at that time. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1280OpenMr. Roy Case, Twin Coach Highway Products Incorporated, Kent, OH 44240; Mr. Roy Case Twin Coach Highway Products Incorporated Kent OH 44240; Dear Mr. Case: Thank you for your letter of August 22, 1973, concerning th requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.; Following are answers to your four questions: >>>1. In a phone conversation with Richard Dyson on September 26 yo explained that the window mechanism in question (which you mentioned you are no longer using) requires the release of both mechanisms before the window releases -- that is, before the window will no longer conform to the retention requirements in paragraph S5.1, S5.1.1, and S5.1.2 of the standard. In this case, only one of the force applications necessary to operate both mechanisms need differ by 90 degrees to 180 degrees from the direction of the original push-out motion of the emergency exit.; 2. You are correct that the post in front of the window is not a obstruction so long as it permits passage of the ellipsoid. However, when a post cuts a window opening into two segments as shown in your enclosed sketch, only the segment that passes the ellipsoid, not the entire window opening, may count toward the measurement of total area specified in paragraph S5.2.; 3. Although Figure 3C shows only the boundaries for high and low forc access regions when the bus is upright (and when an obstacle is between the occupant and the unit), these same dimensions are these that are to be applied when the bus is overturned on either side, with the side on which the bus is resting being considered as the floor. The transposition of these dimensions is illustrated to some extent in Figure 3D.; Whether or not both rear windows must be made into emergency exit rests solely on whether both windows are necessary for the bus to meet the unobstructed opening requirements, and the emergency exit release requirements of S5.3 and S5.5 when the bus is upright and overturned on either side.; 4. The cut-off date for windows which do not comply with the standar is that of the date of manufacture of the bus in which the window is installed. All buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1973, must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217.<<<; If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs |
|
ID: aiam3747OpenMr. Al Desarro, Potemkin, 21111 South Dixie Highway, Miami, FL 33189; Mr. Al Desarro Potemkin 21111 South Dixie Highway Miami FL 33189; Dear Mr. Desarro: This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning the type of seat belts that must be used in a 1983 converted van that has a sofa.; Paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection*, (copy enclosed) required trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less to meet the same requirements as passenger cars. This would include the vans in question. Paragraph S4.1.2.3 of the standard specifies that passenger cars must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly (non-detachable lap and shoulder belt) at each front outboard designated seating position. At all other seating positions, 2 seat belt assembly must be used. Thus, your vans must have Type 2 belts in the two front seats and either Type 2 or Type 1 belts in the rear seating positions, including the sofa. The agency's position regarding seat belts for sofa/beds used in van conversions is more fully explained in the enclosed interpretation letter of March 29, 1983, to Sherrod Vans, Inc.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4082OpenMr. Larry Alexander, Senior Product Manager, Consumer Products Division, Tuck Industries, Inc., Lefevre Lane, New Rochelle, NY 10801; Mr. Larry Alexander Senior Product Manager Consumer Products Division Tuck Industries Inc. Lefevre Lane New Rochelle NY 10801; Dear Mr. Alexander: This is in reply to your letter of October 1, 1985, asking whether an of your pressure sensitive tapes packaged for the automotive aftermarket are subject to any regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You have been asked by one of your customers to certify that your tape meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.; You provide four types of tapes: lens repair tape (for temporary us until a broken lens is replaced), hose repair tape (for temporary repair of leaks in water hoses), clear patch tape (for repair of upholstery), and carpet tape (used to hold carpets in place). This agency has jurisdiction over items of motor vehicle equipment, which are defined in part as:; >>>any system, part or component of a motor vehicle as originall manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory or addition to a motor vehicle....'<<<; Your tape could be regarded as an 'addition' to a motor vehicle bu even assuming that it is an item of motor vehicle equipment, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would apply to it. Therefore, no manufacturer certification is required, and you may so inform your customer. Further, any such certification could be viewed as a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by being certification that is false and misleading in a material respect, stating compliance with standards which are, in fact, non-existent.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0868OpenMr. Charles E. Packard, Senior Engineer, Clay Equipment Corporation, Cedar Falls, IA 50613; Mr. Charles E. Packard Senior Engineer Clay Equipment Corporation Cedar Falls IA 50613; Dear Mr. Packard: This is in reply to your letter of September 5, 1972, in which yo enclose a copy of your brochure describing a 'Honey Wagon' and ask what our requirements are.; The 'Honey Wagon' described in your brochure appears to be manufacture primarily for off-road use. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply to off-road use vehicles.; If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, |
|
ID: aiam2855OpenMr. Bruce Henderson, Vice-President, Motorcycle Trades Association, Inc., 510 N. Washington, P.O. Box 132, Alexandria, VA 22313; Mr. Bruce Henderson Vice-President Motorcycle Trades Association Inc. 510 N. Washington P.O. Box 132 Alexandria VA 22313; Dear Mr. Henderson: This responds to your letter concerning the edge treatment requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, as they would apply to rigid or flexible plastics to be used for windshields on motorcycles. You asked for confirmation that one-piece plastics are required to meet the edge treatment requirements set forth in the standard for non- laminated glass.; The edge treatment requirements of Standard No. 205 are specified i paragraph S5.2, which incorporates by reference the SAE Recommended Practice J673a, Automotive Glazing,' August 1967. The SAE Practice specifies different requirements for tempered' and laminated' safety glass. The agency interprets the distinctions to apply equally to plastics. Therefore, one-piece plastic materials must meet the edge treatment requirements specified for tempered' glazing, and laminated plastics must meet the requirements specified for laminated' glazing.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2506OpenMr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager, Safety Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc., Montvale, New Jersey 07645; Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager Safety Engineering BMW of North America Inc. Montvale New Jersey 07645; Dear Mr. Ziwica: This is in response to your January 17, 1977, letter concerning th requirements of Safety Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, For passenger cars. You requested confirmation of your interpretation that the standard specifies no requirements for outside rearview mirrors on the passenger's side of the vehicle when the inside rearview mirror meets S5.1.1 of the standard.; Your interpretation is correct. If the inside rearview mirror of passenger car meets the specified performance requirements, the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an outside rearview mirror on the passenger's side. However, a manufacturer is free to equip its vehicles with outside right-hand mirrors, either plane or convex, if he choses(sic).; You should note that each passenger car whose inside rearview mirro does not meet the field of view performance requirements of Paragraph S5.1.1 must have an outside rearview mirror of unit magnification installed on the passenger's side of the vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5369OpenMr. Michael Love Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc. 100 West Liberty Street Reno, Nevada 89501; Mr. Michael Love Manager Compliance Porsche Cars North America Inc. 100 West Liberty Street Reno Nevada 89501; "Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays and No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the standards in connection with three options your company is considering for changing its 'Tiptronic' automatic transmission system. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The current Tiptronic automatic transmission system can be described as follows: The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 1. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the 'M' position after being tapped. There are two gear position displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel. The middle console display, which is not illuminated, shows each of the 10 positions where the shift lever may be placed. It also shows the position which is selected. The display on the instrument panel, which is illuminated, has two columns which correspond to the slots on the middle console. However, while the left column (corresponding to the left slot or automatic function) shows the positions P R N D 3 2 1, the right column (corresponding to the right slot or manual function) shows the positions 4 3 2 1. In other words, the right column portion of the display shows the available gears and the actual gear selected rather than + M -. For both columns, the selected position or gear is indicated by an illuminated arrow. In your letter to NHTSA, you indicate that Porsche is considering the following three options for modifying its system: Option 1. The first proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot. Option 2a. The second proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot and the + and - positions on the right (manual) slot. Gear selection in the manual mode would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel. Option 2b) The third proposed modification would provide only one slot with the following positions (in order): P R N D M D. In the M position, gear selection would be accomplished by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel. For each of the proposed modifications, the shift lever positions would be labeled on the middle console, in the same manner as the current system. Similarly, the middle console would not be illuminated. The instrument panel display would not change for any of the options. You ask a number of questions concerning whether the Tiptronic system, as modified under options 1, 2a and 2b, would comply with Standards No. 101 and 102. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 which are relevant to your questions. Section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states: Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted. (b) The transmission is not in park. S3.1.4.4 states: Effective September 23, 1991, all of the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 shall be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the information may be provided. Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position indicators. Section S5.1 requires that gear position display must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102. In a April 2, 1989 letter to Porsche concerning the Tiptronic system, we concluded that, given the reference in Standard No. 101 to Standard No. 102, where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. 102 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. 101 must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. 102. With this background in mind, I will discuss the existing Tiptronic system and the three possible modifications. For the reasons discussed above and in our April 2, 1989 letter, while multiple gear position displays are permitted, one such display must comply with all of the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. Since your console display is not illuminated, it would obviously not comply with Standard No. 101. I will therefore address your letter in the context of whether the instrument panel display meets the requirements of the two standards. I assume that the instrument panel is activated during the times specified by Standard No. 102. Under section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102, there must be a display of all of the shift lever positions in relation to each other, and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. In our April 2, 1989 letter, we stated that your design has the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 2 1 + M -. We noted that the right column of the alternative instrument panel displays identified in your letter showed either 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1 instead of + M -. We concluded that if the instrument panel display was to be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 102, it would be necessary for the display to show the 10 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. Porsche evidently did not follow the opinion provided in that letter, since Porsche neither provided illumination for the console display nor showed the 10 actual shift lever positions, identified in our letter, on the instrument panel display. While we do not understand the reason for this decision by Porsche, we believe that one could reasonably argue that the + and - locations are not really shift lever 'positions,' since the shift lever cannot be left in those locations. Under this view, + M - could be seen as 'one' shift lever position, which is represented on the instrument panel by 4 3 2 1. We would accept this as an alternative way of characterizing the current Tiptronic system, and are therefore not aware of any compliance problems. I will now turn to the three possible modifications. Once again, since the non-illuminated console display would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, the relevant question is whether the instrument panel display meets the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. A common problem for all three options would be that the instrument panel display retained from the original Tiptronic system would not correspond to the shift lever positions of the modified designs. This could be corrected for options 1 and 2a simply by deleting the 3 2 1 portion of the left column. A more complicated correction would be needed for option 2a, since the display would need to show the following positions in relation to each other: P R N D M D. I have several other comments on your letter. You stated that for all three options, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display those positions if selected automatically in the D position, as long as they as displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Porsche is correct that it is unnecessary to provide shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1. Moreover, to the extent that such shift lever positions are not provided but the gears are instead selected automatically in the D position or manually in the M position by tapping the shift lever or shift rocker switch, it is unnecessary to display the gears. You also stated the following: Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as 'shift levers' during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The 'shift lever position' would then be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of 'shift levers.' It follows then that identification of 'shift lever position' would entail identifying the distinct transmission operating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected. . . . For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under the provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmission position is illuminated. We would not view the shift rocker switch(es) as shift levers under any circumstances. Instead, for the vehicle designs at issue, the lever provided on the middle console would be the only shift lever. When the shift lever is in the 'M' position, the shift rocker switch(es) simply permit manual shifting that is akin to the automatic shifting that occurs when the shift lever is in the 'D' position. The rocker switch(es) could not be used to shift the transmission to P, R or N. Under these circumstances, we view the rocker switch(es) as a control which is auxiliary to the shift lever and unregulated by Standard No. 102. I note that we might take a different position if the rocker switch(es) permitted the transmission to be shifted to P, R or N, since Standard No. 102 includes requirements to prevent shifting errors. I also note that Standard No. 101 does not require transmission shift levers or controls which are auxiliary to shift levers to be illuminated. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel "; |
|
ID: aiam0491OpenMr. Stewart N. Metz, Crane Carrier Company, P.O. Box 4508, Tulsa, OK 74104; Mr. Stewart N. Metz Crane Carrier Company P.O. Box 4508 Tulsa OK 74104; Dear Mr. Metz: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971, in which yo requested an opinion as to the requirements of Standard No. 208 that will apply to your vehicles after January 1, 1972. It appears from the information you provided that all of your vehicles have gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds. They will therefore be subject to the requirements of section S4.3 of the standard. Under this section, you may equip them with either of two restraint options - a passive restraint system, or a seat belt that conforms to the Federal seat belt standard (Standard No. 209). The vehicles will also have to have seats that conform to Standard No. 207, and seat belt anchorages that conform to Standard No. 210.; Copies of each standard are enclosed for your reference. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2156OpenMr. Alberto Negro, Parklane Towers West, One Parklane Boulevard, Dearborn, MI 48126; Mr. Alberto Negro Parklane Towers West One Parklane Boulevard Dearborn MI 48126; Dear Mr. Negro: This is in response to your letter of November 6, 1975, requesting a interpretation of paragraph S5. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219, *Windshield Zone Intrusion*.; You asked whether the standard permits marking or penetration of th protected zone to a depth greater than 1/4 inch, by windshield wipers during a barrier crash test. Please excuse our delay in answering your question.; Paragraph S5. of Standard No. 219 states that 'no part of the vehicl outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and *other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield*, shall penetrate the protected zone template' (emphasis added.) Windshield wipers are 'components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield.' Therefore, Standard No. 219 does allow penetration of the protected zone by windshield wipers during the barrier crash test.; Please note that Standard No. 219 was amended, Docket 74-21, Notice 3 to substitute the term 'daylight opening' for 'windshield opening', and to add the new term to the requirements of paragraph S5. The amendments are effective September 1, 1976, for passenger cars, and September 1, 1977, for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. I am enclosing a copy of the notice for your information.; Please contact us if we can (sic) of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.