Overview
Title
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Small Electric Motors and Electric Motors; Correction
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Department of Energy fixed a mistake in some complicated rules about little motors. They made sure the rules are written the right way, but this fix doesn't change what the rules actually mean or do.
Summary AI
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a correction to a recent rule about test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors. This correction addresses an error in the instructions for updating the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The mistake did not change the content or conclusions of the original rule. The corrected rule will take effect on February 3, 2021.
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") recently published a final rule amending the test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors. This correction republishes an amendment from that final rule that could not be incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR") due to an inaccurate amendatory instruction. Neither the error nor the correction in this document affect the substance of the rulemaking or any conclusions reached in support of the final rule.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under discussion is a correction issued by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to a recent rule concerning test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors. The initial rule amendment aimed to update testing procedures, but an error in the amendatory instructions prevented these changes from being incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The correction rectifies these instructions. Importantly, the error and subsequent correction do not alter the substance of the rule or its foundational conclusions. The revised rule becomes effective on February 3, 2021.
General Summary
This document serves as a corrective measure to ensure that the regulatory updates for small electric and electric motors are correctly documented in federal regulations. Originally, incorrect amendatory instructions led to a misalignment with the proposed updates. This correction primarily addresses a renumbering error, where some sections were incorrectly designated within an appendix, thereby inhibiting accurate documentation.
Significant Issues or Concerns
While the correction itself does not introduce substantive changes, it employs technical language typical for regulatory documents. This linguistic complexity can be challenging for laypersons to understand. The primary issue addressed involves the redesignation of sections within an appendix, which may be confusing without the prior context of the original document. Additionally, there is no outlined impact on the final rule's substance, which may not be immediately evident to those unfamiliar with regulatory amendment processes.
Impact on the Public
The correction has little direct impact on the public at large. It addresses an administrative issue that ensures regulatory accuracy and alignment with intended procedural updates. This correction underscores the importance of meticulous documentation in federal rulemaking processes to maintain the integrity and orderliness of federal regulations.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For specific stakeholders, such as manufacturers and industries reliant on small electric motors, this correction ensures that they operate under the most current and intended testing procedures. By aligning the regulations with the newly intended guidelines, the DOE helps ensure that test procedures are both accurate and enforceable. This is particularly significant for compliance officers and legal teams within these industries, as it mitigates potential discrepancies in regulatory adherence due to documentation errors. However, since the correction does not alter the rule's substance, it does not introduce new compliance challenges for stakeholders.
Overall, this document represents an administrative correction, ensuring that regulatory documentation is both accurate and reflective of the DOE's original rulemaking intentions.
Issues
• The document does not mention any specific spending, so there is no indication of potentially wasteful spending or favoritism towards certain organizations or individuals.
• The language used is technical as it deals with regulatory text and is expected to be complex, but it may be difficult for a layperson to understand.
• The correction regarding the redesignation of sections within the appendix might be confusing without prior knowledge of the original document's structure.
• There is no indication of any impact on the substance of the final rule, but it may not be immediately clear to all readers why this correction is necessary if they are not familiar with the regulatory amendment process.