Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001436 <br /> <br />authorized or carried out by the Secretary does not jeopardize the continued existence of any <br />threatened or endangered species, does not adversely modify or destroy a critical habitat, and is <br />analyzed by an appropriate environmental document. Consultation and coordination between <br />Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, other agencies, and interested parties will be <br />completed on a case-by-case basis. <br /> <br />Paperwork Reduction Act <br /> <br />The Department believes that this rule does not contain information collection requirements <br />that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must approve under the Paperwork <br />Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.c. 3501 et seq. This proposed rule is geographically limited to <br />the States of Arizona, California and Nevada. The proposed rule covers authorized entities that <br />would store Colorado River water off the mainstream of the Colorado River. The information to <br />be reported will be compiled by the authorized entities in the course of their normal business and <br />the annual reports to the Secretary will not impose any significant time or cost burden. It is <br />estimated that each respondent would need one hour at an estimated cost of $20 to complete the <br />annual reporting requirement. Moreover, the Department assumes that there will never be an <br />industry-wide collection of information and assumes that there will always be fewer than 10 <br />entities required to report information. Notwithstanding these circumstances, the Department <br />intends to seek information collection approval from the OMB, pursuant to the Paperwork <br />Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.c. 3501 et seq. <br /> <br />Regulatory Flexibility Act <br /> <br />Congress enacted The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.c. 601 et seq., to <br />ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small <br />entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant <br />economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. An <br />initial RF A analysis has been completed. This rule will not impose any direct cost on small <br />entities. A benefit-cost analysis was completed and concludes that the proposed rule does not <br />impose significant or unique impact upon small governments (including Indian communities), <br />small entities such as water purveyors, water districts, or associations, or individual entitlement <br />holders. <br /> <br />Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 <br /> <br />The adoption of 43 CPR part 414 will not result in any unfunded mandate to State, local, or <br />tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of$loo million or more in anyone <br />year. <br /> <br />Executive Order 12612, Federalism Assessment <br /> <br />The proposed rule does not alter the relationship between the Federal Government and the <br /> <br />22 <br />