5. There are reasons for the RUAA not to embrace either the "manifest disregard" or the "public policy" standards of court review of arbitral awards. The first is presented by the omission from the FAA of either standard. Given that omission, there is a very significant question of possible FAA preemption of a such a provision in the RUAA, should the Supreme Court or Congress eventually confirm that the four narrow grounds for vacatur set out in Section 10(a) of the federal act are the exclusive grounds for vacatur. The second reason for not including these vacatur grounds is the dilemma in attempting to fashion unambiguous, "bright line" tests for these two standards. The case law on both vacatur grounds is not just unsettled but also is conflicting and indicates further evolution in the courts. As a result, the Drafting Committee concluded not to add these two grounds for vacatur in the statute. A motion to include the ground of "manifest disregard" in Section 23(a) was defeated by the Committee of the Whole at the July, 2000, meeting of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

§8724.__Modification or correction of award

1.__Grounds to modify or correct award.__Upon motion made within 90 days after the movant receives notice of the award pursuant to section 8719 or within 90 days after the movant receives notice of a modified or corrected award pursuant to section 8720, the court shall modify or correct the award if:

A.__There was an evident mathematical miscalculation or an evident mistake in the description of a person, thing or property referred to in the award;

B.__The arbitrator has made an award on a claim not submitted to the arbitrator and the award may be corrected