FR C1-2020-23353

Overview

Title

Hazardous Materials: Editorial Corrections and Clarifications

Agencies

ELI5 AI

The document talks about a small mistake where someone wrote the wrong date—January 20, 2021—and it should actually be January 21, 2021. It's like fixing an error in a story to make sure everyone knows the right date.

Summary AI

The document is a correction notice related to a previously published rule by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration under the Transportation Department. It corrects a date error in rule document 2020-23353, originally published on December 21, 2020. Both occurrences of "January 20, 2021" on page 83366 are updated to "January 21, 2021" to reflect the correct date in the DATES section.

Type: Rule
Citation: 86 FR 2564
Document #: C1-2020-23353
Date:
Volume: 86
Pages: 2564-2564

AnalysisAI

In reviewing the document titled "Hazardous Materials: Editorial Corrections and Clarifications", it becomes evident that this notice pertains to a correction of a previously published rule by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, under the Transportation Department. The original rule document, referenced as 2020-23353, was issued in the Federal Register on December 21, 2020.

General Summary

The primary purpose of this document is to rectify an incorrect date mentioned twice in the original publication. Specifically, the document instructs that where "January 20, 2021" appears on page 83366, it should be corrected to "January 21, 2021". This appears to be a straightforward administrative correction aimed at ensuring the accuracy of the Federal Register's records.

Significant Issues or Concerns

Despite the straightforward nature of this correction, there are a few issues worth noting:

  • Lack of an Abstract: The absence of an abstract in the document metadata may hinder readers' quick understanding of its purpose. An abstract could succinctly convey the essence of the document, offering a brief summary for those who may not read the full text.

  • Missing 'Action' Field: The metadata does not include an 'action' field, which typically provides insights into the document's intent or purpose. This omission may cause confusion about the specific aim of the correction notice.

  • Verification Challenges: The document references specific page numbers and line numbers, which may be challenging to verify without physical access to the Federal Register. This could be a barrier for those who rely on digital resources.

  • Use of Legal Terminology: Various legal references and codes like 'FR Doc.' and 'BILLING CODE' are included without explanation. This technical language could be confusing for readers unfamiliar with legal documentation or the workings of government agencies.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, especially those directly affected by the rule in question, such editorial corrections ensure clarity and prevent potential misinterpretations due to date discrepancies. However, the broader public is unlikely to experience immediate impacts from this correction notice unless they are stakeholders awaiting the implementation of the rule.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Specific stakeholders, such as businesses or entities that handle hazardous materials, would need to be acutely aware of such corrections to plan their operations accordingly. Inaccuracies regarding effective dates can have significant logistical implications for compliance and operational planning. In this way, the corrected date ensures stakeholders do not mistakenly adhere to an incorrect timeline, thus avoiding possible legal or operational complications.

Overall, while this document may seem minor due to its simple correction nature, it underscores the importance of precision in regulatory documents. Accurate dates and information help maintain order and predictability for those navigating the regulatory landscape.

Issues

  • • The document lacks an abstract, which could provide a summary and enhance understanding.

  • • There is no 'action' field in the metadata that describes the intent or purpose of the document, which could provide clarity.

  • • The correction section references page numbers and line numbers without providing electronic access, which might make verification difficult for those without physical access to the Federal Register.

  • • The document contains legal references and terminology (like 'FR Doc.' and 'BILLING CODE') that may not be familiar to all readers. Simplification or explanation could improve accessibility.

Statistics

Size

Pages: 1
Words: 124
Sentences: 3
Entities: 17

Language

Nouns: 25
Verbs: 6
Adjectives: 2
Adverbs: 0
Numbers: 28

Complexity

Average Token Length:
3.61
Average Sentence Length:
41.33
Token Entropy:
3.94
Readability (ARI):
18.72

Reading Time

less than a minute