Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Extension
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Energy Information Administration wants to keep asking questions about uranium for three more years. They're trying to make sure they have all the facts they need about how much uranium there is and what happens with it.
Summary AI
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), part of the Department of Energy (DOE), has requested a three-year extension for its Uranium Data Program (UDP), without any changes, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program includes three surveys that gather important information on uranium production, marketing, and reserves in the United States. Public comments on this request must be submitted by June 5, 2025. According to EIA estimates, the annual reporting burden includes responses from 99 respondents, totaling 1,775 burden hours and costing approximately $168,607.25, but does not involve any capital or start-up costs.
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 without 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 document in question is a notice from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which is part of the Department of Energy (DOE). This notice outlines the agency's request for a three-year extension of its Uranium Data Program (UDP) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, maintaining the current format and structure without any changes. The UDP collects data through three types of surveys focusing on different aspects of uranium production, marketing, and reserves in the United States.
General Summary
The EIA has sought permission to extend the information collection associated with its Uranium Data Program for an additional three years. This program is important for collecting comprehensive data about the uranium industry, such as production levels, marketing strategies, and existing reserves. The document states that public comments are invited on this request, which are to be submitted by June 5, 2025.
The notice provides several technical details, including the number of respondents, estimated burden hours, and associated costs. According to EIA estimates, 99 respondents will contribute to a total of 1,775 burden hours annually, with a projected cost of about $168,607.25. The document specifies that there are no significant startup or capital costs involved in the submission of this information, suggesting that most of the requirements could be fulfilled during normal business operations.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several issues arise from a close reading of the notice:
Burden Rate Determination: The document does not explain how the $94.99 per hour burden rate was determined. This lack of transparency could lead to concerns about whether the project cost is an overestimation.
Extension Justification: There is no detailed justification for the three-year extension without changes. This absence may lead to questions about whether the program is still necessary in its current form or if improvements could be made.
Selection of Respondents: The notice does not clarify how the 99 respondents are chosen. Without appropriate disclosure, this could bring up suspicions of potential partiality or favoritism.
Complexity in Language: The language used in the document to describe how to submit comments might be perceived as complex, potentially limiting public participation in the comment process.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the document reflects an ongoing commitment on the part of the EIA to monitor and document the viability and economics of uranium production in the United States. This data can benefit various stakeholders, including policymakers, the nuclear and energy sector, and the general public who are concerned with energy security and resource management.
However, the complexity in filing comments and the lack of detailed cost justification might discourage some individuals from participating in public discourse on this proposal. Greater transparency and simplified instructions for public engagement could enhance democratic participation.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Positive Impacts:
- Industry Stakeholders: For the uranium and energy industries, the collection of this data helps ensure that necessary information is available for market analysis and strategy planning. It potentially aids in aligning industry practices with market demands and regulatory requirements.
- Government Agencies: The data serves as a vital resource for various governmental bodies to make informed decisions about resource management and energy policy.
Negative Impacts:
- Respondents: The 99 entities that are required to provide data may face a time and resource burden, though this is mitigated by the fact that no significant additional costs are reported.
- Public Interest Groups: Those aiming to contribute to public discussions may find barriers in understanding the procedural complexities due to the involved legal jargon and technical details.
The extension of the Uranium Data Program maintains essential data flow for energy security and strategic planning, but attention to transparency, clarification of costs, and easier public engagement could improve the process significantly.
Financial Assessment
In reviewing the financial aspects of the document concerning the Uranium Data Program (UDP) by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), several monetary elements merit attention.
The document highlights the estimated cost associated with data collection efforts for the UDP, which amounts to $168,607.25. This cost arises from the 1,775 burden hours anticipated for undertaking the information collection activities, with a calculated rate of $94.99 per hour. The methodology behind how this hourly rate was determined is not explicitly detailed within the document, which raises questions about the potential overestimation of costs. A clearer explanation of this rate calculation would provide better transparency, helping alleviate potential concerns about whether the estimated cost accurately reflects the actual financial expenditure related to this effort.
The document states that there are no capital or start-up costs involved in this data collection, indicating that these processes are integrated into the regular operations of business. However, the specificity and context of how such processes generate no additional costs apart from the burden hours are not provided. This can lead to questions about hidden costs or efficiencies that might offset the purported cost neutrality.
Additionally, the issue of a three-year extension without changes is noted but not justified financially. Understanding why no alterations have been made to potentially reduce costs or improve efficiency might address concerns over whether the financial resources allocated to this program are being managed optimally over time.
Potential transparency issues also extend to the selection of the 99 respondents, as clarity is lacking in the document regarding their selection criteria. This lack of transparency could raise concerns about equitable and justifiable respondent inclusion, which is essential for ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently and fairly across representative sectors.
In conclusion, while the document presents a clear figure for the associated costs of the UDP's data collection efforts, the supporting details regarding the derivation of these costs and rationale behind the ongoing structure of the program are not elaborated. Strengthening explanations in these areas would likely contribute to enhanced understanding and acceptance of the financial allocations described.
Issues
• The notice lacks specific details on how the $94.99 per hour burden rate was determined, which could indicate potential overestimation of costs.
• The document does not provide clear justification for the three-year extension without changes, which may raise questions about the necessity of the surveys in their current form.
• The potential lack of transparency regarding the selection of the 99 respondents, which could be perceived as favoritism if not properly disclosed.
• The language used to describe the procedure for submitting comments might be complex for some readers, which could limit public participation in the comment process.