Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Extension
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Energy Information Administration wants to keep collecting and sharing data about how uranium is made and sold in the U.S., but they're making some changes to how they protect this information and how long it takes people to fill out their forms. They explain the need for these changes and say they will still share some of the data with the public.
Summary AI
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), part of the Department of Energy, has requested an extension for its Uranium Data Program. This program collects data on uranium production and marketing in the U.S. through three surveys. EIA plans to stop protecting certain survey information under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency guidelines due to changes in the uranium market. Although there are no additional costs, the time to complete one of the forms has increased.
Abstract
EIA submitted an information collection request for extension as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension with changes of its Uranium Data Program (UDP), OMB Control Number 1905-0160. The UDP consists of three surveys. Form EIA-851A Domestic Uranium Production Report (Annual) collects annual data from the U.S. uranium industry on uranium milling and processing, uranium feed sources, uranium mining, employment, drilling, expenditures, and uranium reserves. Form EIA-851Q Domestic Uranium Production Report (Quarterly) collects monthly data on uranium production that is reported on a quarterly basis. Form EIA-858 Uranium Marketing Annual Survey collects annual data from the U.S. uranium market on uranium contracts and deliveries, inventories, enrichment services purchased, uranium in fuel assemblies, feed deliveries to enrichers, and unfilled market requirements for the current year and the following ten years.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, has published a notice requesting an extension of its Uranium Data Program. This extension is particularly important for collecting and disseminating information about uranium production and marketing within the United States. The notice reveals that the EIA has re-evaluated its data protection strategies for the program in response to changing circumstances in the uranium market.
General Summary
The notice outlines the extension of an information collection initiative managed by the EIA, which consists of three different surveys. These surveys gather data at both annual and quarterly intervals concerning uranium production and marketing. As part of this extension request, EIA has proposed a shift in how data protection is handled, signaling a move away from strict confidentiality measures for certain types of survey data. It underscores significant changes in the domestic uranium market that purportedly justify these adjustments. Readers are informed that the demand for uranium in the U.S. now heavily relies on imports, which has impacted the domestic production landscape.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the document, primarily revolving around data protection and the rationale behind the EIA's decisions:
Data Protection Changes: The document indicates a reduction in data protection measures for certain surveys, citing a "material change" in circumstances. However, it fails to provide sufficient detail on what these changes entail or sufficiently justify the reduced protection. Without clarity, this raises concerns about potential confidentiality breaches for respondents who supply data to these surveys.
Increased Burden Hours: The time required to complete one of the forms has increased substantially, from 15 to 26 hours. The justification stems from "respondent requests" and "industry studies," yet the notice lacks transparency regarding the specifics of these studies or examples of respondent feedback. This leaves readers questioning the adequacy and basis of these claims.
Public Release of Data: While the EIA states that some data will be made public, it does not explain thoroughly how this aligns with FOIA and other existing data protection frameworks. There is ambiguity regarding the balance between public access to data and the protection of sensitive information.
Public Impact
For the general public, this notice may foster increased transparency in uranium market data, which could facilitate a clearer understanding of the energy sector's dynamics. This may be particularly valuable for those interested in energy policy and market trends in the U.S.
However, there is a risk that the removal of certain data protections might compromise sensitive company information, potentially leading to privacy concerns among data providers. The broader implications for energy security and the domestic uranium industry's viability also emerge, yet the notice does not address these aspects directly.
Stakeholder Impacts
For specific stakeholders like uranium production companies, the EIA's decision to publicly release more data could prove beneficial by improving market transparency. However, the reduced data protection might also pose disadvantages, such as exposing business-sensitive details to competitors.
Moreover, companies and industry bodies involved in data collection efforts might find the increased burden hours financially and operationally taxing, as the notice does not provide thorough information on mitigating these additional requirements' impact.
In conclusion, while the extension of the Uranium Data Program reflects an effort to modernize data handling in response to shifting market conditions, there remain several ambiguities regarding its execution and potential impacts. Clarity and transparency from EIA in addressing these concerns could enhance stakeholder trust and engagement moving forward.
Financial Assessment
The document from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) primarily discusses an extension request for information collection concerning the Uranium Data Program. A notable financial aspect mentioned in the document involves the estimated cost of burden hours related to this data collection.
Summary of Financial Reference
The document provides a detailed estimation of the cost associated with the data collection burden. It states that the cost of the burden hours is estimated to be $144,438.85, which is based on 1,769 burden hours calculated at a rate of $81.65 per hour. The document asserts that there are no additional capital or start-up costs associated with this data collection, implying that this cost is primarily tied to the labor involved in maintaining and providing the information.
Relation to Identified Issues
One of the identified issues in the document is the lack of transparency concerning the increase in burden hours for Form EIA-858, from 15 to 26 hours. While the document attributes this increase to "respondent requests and confirmed through industry studies," it doesn't provide detailed insight or examples of these studies and requests. This omission may lead to questions about the justification for the higher burden hour estimate and whether the corresponding increase in the cost of $144,438.85 is warranted.
Additionally, there is a lack of benchmarking or context provided for this cost, making it challenging to assess its reasonableness. Without comparing these figures against industry standards or historical data, stakeholders might find it difficult to evaluate whether these costs reflect efficient use of resources for the outputs achieved.
Lastly, while the document does mention legislative frameworks like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in relation to data protection, it does not elaborate on how the financial allocations, such as the burden hour costs, align with these legal obligations or regulatory requirements. For stakeholders interested in how financial resources are managed in alignment with legal frameworks, this lack of context may be an area of concern.
Overall, while the document does specify the estimated financial cost linked to the burden hours, the clarity and comprehensiveness of the financial justifications and their ties to broader program objectives and regulatory standards could be improved.
Issues
• The document mentions significant data protection changes for Forms EIA-851A and EIA-851Q, but it does not sufficiently explain how these changes will impact respondents or data users.
• The reason for discontinuing CIPSEA protection for certain data due to 'material changes' in domestic uranium production is provided, but there is little detail on what these changes entail or how they justify reducing data protection.
• There is a noted increase in the burden hour estimate for Form EIA-858 from 15 to 26 hours, justified by 'respondent requests and confirmed through industry studies,' yet the document does not elaborate on these studies or specific examples of requests, which could be seen as a lack of transparency.
• While it is explained that the majority of uranium used in the U.S. is imported, there is no discussion on how this shift affects the EIA’s role or the future of the domestic uranium industry.
• The published burden hour cost of $144,438.85 seems precise, but without context or benchmarking, it isn't clear if this is a reasonable cost for the stated outputs.
• Certain legislative references (e.g., 15 U.S.C. 772(b), 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) are mentioned without context, making it difficult for readers unfamiliar with these statutes to understand their relevance or implications.
• The document states that some data will be publicly released but doesn't provide a clear explanation of how this aligns with protecting sensitive information under FOIA and other regulatory frameworks.
• There is mention that cognitive research showed respondents are comfortable with public inferences from data, yet details on the methodology, scope, or results of this research are not shared.