Supporting Statement 1006-0006

Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
CERTIFICATION SUMMARY FORM AND
REPORTING SUMMARY FORM FOR ACREAGE LIMITATION
43 CFR PART 426 AND 43 CFR PART 428
CURRENT OMB APPROVAL NO. 1006-0006
Terms of Clearance
“Upon its next request for OMB approval, the agency must provide an option for
electronic submission of the reporting summary form.
In accordance with 5 CFR Part 1320, in order for OMB to assess the utility of the
information collected, upon its next request for OMB approval the agency shall provide:
(1) a report detailing investigations over the period of OMB approval by BOR and the
Districts based on discrepancies between the summary reports and the individual reports;
and (2) an explanation of the need of some BOR regional offices to request summary
reports more frequently than once per year.”
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has addressed the issue of electronic
submission of both the certification and reporting summary forms by issuing guidance dated
December 30, 2008, which outlines the process districts must use in order to electronically
submit district summary forms. Districts may request a personal identification number (PIN),
unique to a particular water year, to be entered in lieu of a signature on the submitted summary
form. Reclamation provides the requesting district with electronic files of the summary forms
that Reclamation staff has secured with the district’s PIN. The requesting district, and
Reclamation (once the forms are electronically submitted via e-mail) must use the district’s PIN
to open the electronic files. See item 3 below for more clarification.
With regard to a report on the “discrepancies between the summary reports and the
individual reports,” Reclamation’s cyclical water district review cycle has been addressing the
issue of such discrepancies since the implementation of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982
(RRA) in October of 1992. Reclamation’s water district review schedule ensures that every
district is reviewed at least once every 5 years. Reclamation staff visit a water district and
conduct an in-depth review of the RRA forms submitted by individuals in the district during the
water years that have elapsed since Reclamation conducted its most recent review at the district.
As part of the review activities, the visiting Reclamation staff will compare the data on the
individual RRA forms collected by the district with the data reported by the district on the
district summary forms. Products of every water district review include a formal written report
from Reclamation’s water district review team that details the review findings and documents
corrections required (if any) to the RRA forms reviewed (including a schedule for providing
those corrections to Reclamation). Also generated from the findings at water district reviews are
the bases for audits that may be required on certain landholdings. In all cases, the water district
review report generated at the conclusion of every water district review provides detailed
information on the proceedings, findings, and resolution of all water district review activities.

1

Reclamation rarely requests district summary forms more frequently than once per year.
The reason Reclamation may issue such a request typically pertains to correction of errors
(e.g., submittal of a corrected form if Reclamation finds errors during a water district review).
There are reasons a district may choose to submit more than one district summary form per year,
such as the addition of data for landholdings of a new landholder in the district if the addition
takes place after RRA summary forms have been submitted for the year. In such a case, the
district’s submittal of a new summary form would be of the district’s choosing and not at
Reclamation’s request.
General Instructions
A Supporting Statement, including the text of the notice to the public required by
5 CFR 1320.5(a)(i)(iv) and its actual or estimated date of publication in the Federal Register,
must accompany each request for approval of a collection of information. The Supporting
Statement must be prepared in the format described below, and must contain the information
specified in Section a below. If an item is not applicable, provide a brief explanation. When
item 17 of the OMB Form 83-I is checked “Yes,” Section B of the Supporting Statement must be
completed. OMB reserves the right to require the submission of additional information with
respect to any request for approval.
A. JUSTIFICATION
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a
copy of the appropriate section of each statue and regulation mandating or authorizing the
collection of information.
The Reclamation Act of 1902 established a policy of Federal assistance through irrigation
development. Among other requirements, the Reclamation Act of 1902 provided that federally
developed water (irrigation water) could not be delivered to more than 160 acres per individual
ownership. The delivery of irrigation water to leased land was not restricted.
These provisions were amended on October 12, 1982, when President Reagan signed into
law the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA). The RRA permits individual landholders
and irrigation districts (districts) the option of remaining subject to the ownership and pricing
provisions of prior law (prior law) or becoming subject to the ownership and pricing provisions
of the new law (discretionary provisions). The discretionary provisions, found in sections 203
through 208 [except for section 203(b)], of the RRA allow for the delivery of irrigation water to
up to 960 acres owned by an individual or an entity benefiting 25 or fewer persons and up to
640 acres owned by an entity benefiting more than 25 persons. The new law also sets forth
conditions for charging a full-cost rate for irrigation water deliveries.
The discretionary provisions apply only to districts that enter into new or amendatory water
service or repayment contracts with the United States. Districts that had existing contracts with
the United States as of the date of the RRA and that do not amend their contracts to conform to
the discretionary provisions are subject to prior law. In districts that do not amend their

2

contracts to conform to the discretionary provisions, landowners or lessees (landholders) may
individually elect to comply with the discretionary provisions. Certain provisions of the RRA
apply to all districts, regardless of whether they amend their contracts to conform to the
discretionary provisions or remain subject to prior law.
Section 206 of the RRA requires that as a condition to receiving irrigation water, each
landholder in a district that is subject to the discretionary provisions “. . . shall furnish the district
in a form prescribed by the Secretary, a certificate that they are in compliance . . .” with the
provisions of the Act. They must also include a statement of the number of acres leased, the
term of any lease, and a certification that the rent paid reflects the reasonable value of the
irrigation water to the productivity of the land.
Section 228 of the RRA further requires that any district subject to the acreage limitation
provisions of Federal reclamation law must compile and maintain such records and information
as the Secretary deems reasonably necessary to implement the provisions of Federal reclamation
law. Every district is to provide, in a form suitable to the Secretary, such reports on the above
matters as the Secretary may require. These sections are further codified by section 224(c),
which requires the Secretary to “. . . collect all data necessary to carry out the provisions of this
title and other provisions of Federal reclamation law.” Sections 426.18 and 426.19 of the
Acreage Limitation Rules and Regulations (43 CFR part 426) (regulations) describe forms
submittal requirements.
Section 5302 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 contains amendments to
the RRA which affect this information collection in two ways: (a) the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) is required to audit all farm operations larger than 960 acres, and (b) land held by
revocable trusts (as defined by the RRA) in certain cases must be attributed to the trusts’
grantors.
In 1988, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit challenging the
validity of the 1987 version of the regulations and the 1988 revisions to those regulations. On
July 26, 1991, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Court) ruled
that the current regulations were unlawful because Reclamation failed to prepare an
environmental impact statement prior to the adoption of the regulations. The Court issued an
order on March 10, 1993, declaring among other things that the current regulations would remain
in effect on an interim basis pending completion of a new rulemaking. In 1993, a Settlement
Contract was executed resolving the lawsuit which required Reclamation to propose new
regulations implementing the RRA. The regulations were finalized and published in the
Federal Register in December 1996 (61 FR 66754, Dec. 18, 1996). In the finalized regulations,
section 426.10 was revised and became effective January 1, 1997. The rest of the revisions to
43 CFR part 426 became effective on January 1, 1998, at which time section 426.10 was
renumbered as section 426.18 (as referenced at the top of this page).
During the above rulemaking process, Reclamation received a number of comments
regarding the compliance of certain large trusts with the acreage limitation provisions of Federal
reclamation law. Comments expressed a variety of viewpoints, including the assertion that some
trusts with landholdings (owned or leased land) in excess of 960 acres circumvent the

3

requirements of Federal reclamation law. Because of this, Reclamation published an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register (61 FR 66827, Dec. 18, 1996)
that asked the public to comment on various issues concerning trusts and the delivery of
Reclamation irrigation water to trusts.
Based on the comments received during the ANPR and the previous rulemaking process,
Reclamation published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 4324, Jan. 26, 2000) entitled:
Information Requirements for Certain Farm Operations in Excess of 960 Acres and the
Eligibility of Certain Formerly Excess Land. This rule added a new part (43 CFR part 428) to
Reclamation’s regulations to supplement the Acreage Limitation Rules and Regulations in
43 CFR part 426. This rule was effective on January 1, 2001, except for those districts whose
water year began prior to January 1st; in such cases the effective date was October 1, 2000.
Forms submittal requirements were established for certain farm operators in 43 CFR 428.4
through 428.8. In considering the issues associated with certain farm operators being required
to submit RRA forms (specifically, farm operators providing services to more than 960 acres
westwide held in trusts or by legal entities), Reclamation also requested comments on whether
current RRA forms should be modified to accommodate the additional information requirements
applicable to farm operators, or if an entirely new form should be developed for farm operators.
Based on the comments received, it was decided that a separate form should be completed by the
applicable farm operators. Reclamation developed a new form for such farm operators to use,
and a new form for districts to list the information received from such farm operators. The
districts’ form for farm operators received OMB approval in the year 2000 under the current
OMB approval number (1006-0006) in anticipation of finalization of 43 CFR part 428; however,
this form was not used until 43 CFR part 428 became effective for the 2001 water year.
In accordance with the requirements of the RRA, an information collection has taken place
since 1984 to administer and enforce the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation
law. The forms included in this information clearance package are a revision of the current
forms, and reflect the requirements of 43 CFR 426.19 that became effective January 1, 1998,
and 43 CFR 428.4 through 428.8 that generally became effective January 1, 2001.
As required by the RRA, the forms included in this information clearance package are to be
used by districts to summarize the data received from individual landholders and farm operators.
The “District Summary of Certification Forms” (Form 7-21SUMM-C) summarizes landholdings
and landholders that are subject to the discretionary provisions. The “District Summary of
Reporting Forms” (Form 7-21SUMM-R) summarizes landholdings and landholders that remain
subject to prior law.

4

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except
for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information
received from the current collection. [Be specific. If this collection is a form or a
questionnaire, every question needs to be justified.]
The RRA forms (as currently approved in another information collection under
OMB clearance number 1006-0005) are to be completed by each landholder and certain farm
operators subject to the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law. These forms
will be submitted to the district where the land is located. Each district will use the data in the
forms to (a) determine the total number of acres each landholder is entitled to irrigate
under Federal reclamation law, (b) determine the rate to be charged for such water
deliveries, and (c) identify farm operators providing services to more than 960 acres
westwide held in trusts or by legal entities within the district. Districts are required to
summarize this information about individual landholdings and certain farm operators using
Forms 7-21SUMM-C and 7-21SUMM-R, and to annually submit these forms to Reclamation.
The summary forms meet the statutory requirements included in section 228 of the RRA.
If Reclamation did not require summary forms from districts showing all landholders’ data,
Reclamation would not know if RRA section 228 requirements were being satisfied. Summary
forms indicating large amounts of unreported acreage, or significant discrepancies between the
reported acreage and the congressionally authorized acreage for any particular district, will alert
Reclamation to potential compliance problems in that district. Thus, the summary forms are a
primary tool for prioritizing districts for Reclamation audits. Also, Reclamation’s
experience to date has shown that compliance problems are frequently revealed through
mathematical discrepancies in the summary forms. For example, a summary form showing
3,000 acres leased by two landholders, but showing no full-cost acreage, almost certainly
indicates a compliance problem. (Generally speaking, the maximum nonfull-cost acreage that
could be leased by two landholders would be 1,920 acres.)
The breakdown of landholder data into various farm size categories and the summarization of
owned, leased, excess, and full-cost acreage, gives Reclamation valuable information on land
tenure on Reclamation projects. Reclamation frequently receives inquiries from the Congress,
the public, and various other parties on land tenure, excess acreage, etc., for specific districts.
This information is often critical in making legislative and policy decisions. Reclamation’s
inability to quickly answer such questions has, in the past, subjected Reclamation to criticism.
The summary forms give Reclamation the ability to expeditiously answer such inquiries. It
should be noted that in general, Reclamation does not collect the forms submitted by
landholders, and those that are collected are not retained permanently. Thus, the district
summary forms are the only permanent record maintained by the Federal government on the
acreage limitation program that provides this data.
The moderate level of detail and categorization specified in the summary forms forces
districts to examine data contained in each landholder’s RRA form (as currently approved under
OMB clearance number 1006-0005). We believe this procedure is invaluable in helping districts
discover false and/or erroneous reporting. It must be remembered that district officials are not
Federal employees and generally consider themselves to be representatives of the farmers’
5

(not the Government’s) interests. If we did not require districts to transfer landholder data to
summary forms in reasonable detail, the majority of landholder forms would likely never be
reviewed until a Reclamation review took place.
Also, this moderate level of detail and categorization gives Reclamation some definite
parameters to determine districts’ attention to forms requirements. If, for example, all
landholdings below 960 acres were summarized in a single category, as has been suggested, it
would be far more difficult for Reclamation to determine whether a district had, in fact,
examined landholder forms at all. For these reasons, we believe the level of detail prescribed in
the enclosed summary forms is necessary and appropriate.
The forms and the instructions to those forms were extensively revised for the 2000 water
year to meet the requirements of President Clinton’s June 1, 1998, memorandum which stated
that all forms to be completed by the public must be written in “plain language” by the year
2001. Since then, further revisions have been made to promote this objective and enhance the
clarity and consistency of the forms. The changes made to the currently approved forms in order
to obtain the draft forms proposed for approval are predominantly editorial and typographical in
nature, with the intent to facilitate the respondents’ ease in form completion and increase the
clarity of the forms for the respondents. Such changes were also designed to improve the
specificity of the information provided by the respondents so that Reclamation can ensure proper
administration of the acreage limitation provisions.
List of forms
Following is a list of district summary forms, their corresponding tabulation sheets, and a
brief discussion of the purpose of each form. A detailed discussion of the purpose of each
question on the forms is provided in Attachment 1.
Form 7-21SUMM-C is to be used by districts to summarize landholdings and landholders
subject to discretionary provisions. Districts that are subject to discretionary provisions also
summarize the landholdings of all trusts and all public entities in their districts. The
summarization is derived from tabulation sheets that are explained below. Reclamation requires
that districts use and submit the following tabulation sheets, except where noted, to facilitate
completion of the summary forms and to aid in fulfilling specific requests for information. This
has eliminated numerous requests to districts for detailed information.
Tabulation A tabulates information from certification forms submitted by individuals and
entities.
Tabulation B tabulates information from forms submitted by trusts and estates.
Tabulation C tabulates information from forms submitted by public entities.
Tabulation D tabulates information from certification forms submitted by religious or
charitable organizations.

6

Tabulation E tabulates errors or infractions detected in the review and compilation of
landholder forms (e.g., forms nonsubmittal by landholders whose westwide landholdings
exceed the forms submittal threshold, erroneous or incomplete landholder information where
failure to complete RRA forms properly will jeopardize the landholders’ eligibility to receive
Reclamation irrigation water, etc.). District reporting of errors will help Reclamation verify
that districts took appropriate action in the case of infractions, and facilitate Reclamation’s
efforts to administer and enforce the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation
law.
Tabulation F is an optional form, provided only for district convenience, to detail and
tabulate information concerning part owners who indirectly hold land. While indirect
landholding information is not addressed on any other tabulation sheet and is consequently
not transferred to Form 7-21SUMM-C or Form 7-21SUMM-R, summarized part owner
information can be used by both districts and Reclamation.
Tabulation G tabulates information from forms submitted by farm operators who provide
services to more than 960 acres westwide held in trusts or by legal entities.
Form 7-21SUMM-R is to be used by districts to summarize landholdings and landholders
that are subject to prior law. Districts that are subject to prior law also summarize the
landholdings of all trusts and all public entities in their districts. The summarization is derived
from tabulation sheets that are explained below. Reclamation requires that districts use and
submit the following tabulation sheets, except where noted, to facilitate completion of the
summary forms and to aid in fulfilling specific requests for information. This has eliminated
numerous requests to districts for detailed information.
Tabulation A tabulates information from reporting forms submitted by individuals and
entities.
Tabulation B tabulates information from forms submitted by trusts and estates.
Tabulation C tabulates information from forms submitted by public entities.
Tabulation D tabulates information from reporting forms submitted by religious or
charitable organizations.
Tabulation E tabulates errors or infractions detected in the review and compilation of
landholder forms (e.g., forms nonsubmittal by landholders whose westwide landholdings
exceed the forms submittal threshold, erroneous or incomplete landholder information where
failure to complete RRA forms properly will jeopardize the landholders’ eligibility to receive
Reclamation irrigation water, etc.). District reporting of errors will help Reclamation verify
that districts took appropriate action in the case of infractions, and facilitate Reclamation’s
efforts to administer and enforce the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation
law.

7

Tabulation F is an optional form, provided only for district convenience, to detail and
tabulate information concerning part owners who indirectly hold land. While indirect
landholding information is not addressed on any other tabulation sheet and is consequently
not transferred to Form 7-21SUMM-C or Form 7-21SUMM-R, summarized part owner
information can be used by both districts and Reclamation.
Tabulation G tabulates information from forms submitted by farm operators who provide
services to more than 960 acres westwide held in trusts or by legal entities.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use
of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other
forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and
the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any
consideration of using information technology to reduce burden [and specifically how this
collection meets GPEA requirements].
Reclamation has made all of the RRA forms in this information collection and the associated
instructions available on the Internet for printing and manual completion, electronic completion
and manual submission, or electronic completion and submission. This effort was fully
accomplished in October 2004 for electronic completion, and December 2008 for electronic
submittal. These forms can be found at www.usbr.gov/rra. Since 1997, Reclamation has offered
districts the opportunity to develop their own electronic RRA forms. In 1997 Reclamation
developed standards for computerized RRA forms which several districts and companies have
used to develop substitute forms in word processing, database, and spreadsheet files.
Reclamation’s standards require Reclamation’s inspection and approval of such electronic RRA
forms prior to their use. While the districts use the substitute forms they have developed to
complete forms for their landholders and the district’s summary forms, at least one private
company has developed a software package of substitute RRA forms that they have marketed to
the public.
The next phase of Reclamation’s effort to make the RRA forms compliant with Government
Paperwork Elimination Act implementation, and to address a term of clearance for this
information collection, was to implement the process of electronic district summary forms
completion and submittal. In guidance dated December 30, 2008, Reclamation provided to
water districts the process districts must use in order to electronically submit district summary
forms to Reclamation. In summary, a district may request a PIN which is unique to a particular
water year. That PIN will be entered in lieu of a signature on the submitted summary form.
Reclamation provides the requesting district with electronic files of the summary forms that
Reclamation staff has secured with the district’s PIN for that water year. The requesting district
and Reclamation (once the forms are electronically submitted via e-mail) must use the district’s
PIN to open the electronic files, thereby ensuring file security and privacy. Reclamation prints a
hard copy of the submitted summary form(s) and tabulation sheet(s) for permanent retention in
the acreage limitation program files. Since Reclamation has no authority to mandate electronic
submittal, at this time and for the foreseeable future electronic submittal is voluntary for the
districts that submit the RRA forms in this IC. Districts subject to the acreage limitation
provisions vary widely in their staffing levels and technological capabilities. Therefore, while
8

some districts may have the staff and equipment to utilize the electronic submittal option, other
districts are not capable of electronic submittal at this time. Although Reclamation has, to the
best of its ability, made the electronic submittal option available for use, it will be difficult to
estimate year to year the number of districts that will choose to submit electronically. At this
time, only 6 of the 210 respondents for this IC have indicated intent to make use of the electronic
submittal option.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar
information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes
described in item 2 above.
The acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law apply only to certain
Reclamation projects that provide irrigation water for agricultural purposes; consequently,
similar data are neither collected nor available through any other Federal agency, State or local
government, or private organization. An attachment to a letter from Mr. Scott J. Cameron,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance and Management (Department of the Interior), to
U.S. Representative Doug Ose regarding an April 11, 2002, hearing on Paperwork Reduction
Act issues (specifically, pages two and three of the attachment to Mr. Cameron’s letter) detail the
following general findings:
a. Not all of Reclamation’s customers participate in USDA programs, and most of USDA’s
customers do not receive Reclamation irrigation water.
b. Reclamation and USDA do not use the same categories of program respondents due to
statutory and regulatory program requirements.
c. The level and nature of detail in USDA and Reclamation information collections differs
in such ways that it is clear USDA data would not be sufficient to allow Reclamation
to properly administer and enforce the acreage limitation provisions of Federal
reclamation law.
d. RRA forms are filed at the local (district) level; USDA forms are filed at county offices
with little centralization of that data.
For the foregoing reasons, it has been determined that there is no duplication with regard to
this particular data collection.
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities
(item 5 of OMB Form 83-I), describe any methods used to minimize burden.
Water user organizations are the respondents to this information collection. Reclamation has
carefully analyzed this requirement to ensure that the information requested of these
organizations is the minimum necessary to implement and enforce the acreage limitation
provisions of Federal reclamation law.

9

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to
reducing burden.
Section 228 of the RRA and section 426.19 of the regulations specify that districts must
report to Reclamation on an annual basis. The collection of this information on a less frequent
basis, or not at all, would violate these provisions of law. Also, if information were collected
and verified on a less frequent basis, enforcement of the law would be weakened, and
landholders and districts would become less aware of the continuing requirement for compliance
with the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law.
7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be
conducted in a manner:
a. Requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than
quarterly.
Some Reclamation regional offices require districts to update summary forms as they
receive more forms from their landholders. Also reference the discussion on this issue in the
“Terms of Clearance” section above.
b. Requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of
information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it.
This would never be required.
c. Requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any
document.
This would never be required.
d. Requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government
contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than 3 years.
Retention of records provisions are not applicable to district summary forms.
Forms 7-21SUMM-C and 7-21SUMM-R are submitted by the districts to Reclamation, and
Reclamation’s Records Retention Schedule (approved by the National Archives and Records
Administration) identifies these forms as permanent records.
e. In connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and
reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study.
The summary forms will not be used this way.
f. Requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed
and approved by OMB.
10

Statistical data classification will not be used.
g. That includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority
established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security
policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data
with other agencies for compatible confidential use.
A pledge of confidentiality is not used.
h. Requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential
information unless the agency can demonstrate that is has instituted procedures to protect
the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
This will not be required as part of the summary forms.
8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in
the Federal Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting
comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize the
public comments received in response to that notice [and in response to the PRA statement
associated with the collection over the past three years] and describe actions taken by the
agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and
hour burden.
Notice was given in the Federal Register on October 24, 2008 (73 FR 63508, Oct. 24, 2008).
No comments were received on this information collection.
a. Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on
the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and
recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any) and on the data elements to be
recorded, disclosed, or reported. [Please list the names, titles, addresses, and phone
numbers of persons contacted.]
Public hearings were held in 1982 after the RRA was enacted. Comments were received
from individual farmers, corporations, and organizations representing various farming and
nonfarming interests. Among the comments received were those that specifically addressed the
certification requirement of the RRA. Comments expressing that forms not be required from
every landholder resulted in the then proposed regulations exempting landholders of 5 acres or
less from forms requirements. After publication of the proposed regulations in the Federal
Register in 1983, more public hearings were held, where draft forms were displayed to the
public. Based on comments received, the draft forms were extensively revised and the
exemption threshold was increased to 40 acres. In 1983, Reclamation officials met with
representatives of water user organizations and irrigation districts to review the forms, resulting
in further revisions. A pretest of the draft forms was conducted during December 1983 and
January 1984. Based on the results of the pretest, some modifications were made to the forms
before they were implemented for the 1984 water year.
11

Public hearings on revised regulations were held in 1986. The forms were further revised as
a result of comments received during those hearings and as a result of experiences with the first
and second generation of forms.
In 1994, public scoping meetings were held to receive public input regarding a revised
rulemaking. Proposed revised regulations were published in the Federal Register on
April 3, 1995. Public hearings were held in May 1995. The public comment period ran from
April 3, through June 26, 1995. These comments were considered in developing the final
regulations, including those affecting the RRA forms requirements.
To consider revisions to the RRA forms, a team was established in September 1995. This
team included two members who were representatives of districts. The other members included
two persons from Reclamation’s Program Analysis Office, two from Reclamation’s area offices,
and two from Reclamation’s regional offices. This team met in 1995 and 1996 to revise the
forms. Initially the revisions were to incorporate the changes in the draft final rulemaking that
would revise the then current regulations. However, when it became apparent the final
rulemaking would not be completed in time for printing of the forms for the 1997 water year, the
forms were revised to reflect the then current regulations.
A notice of request for comments was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 1996,
for the information collection revisions. Reclamation sent a package of the proposed revised
forms to each district that is subject to acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law
seeking comments on the forms. In addition, Reclamation also sent the proposed revised forms
to any party who previously expressed an interest in the revised forms.
Final regulations were published December 18, 1996, with effective dates of January 1, 1997
(amendment to section 426.10 of the then current regulations), and January 1, 1998 (complete
revision and renumbering of the then current regulations). The new regulations changed the
requirements and the instructions on the forms. A notice of a 60-day public comment period was
published January 29, 1997, regarding revisions to the RRA forms. In addition, a copy of the
comments and responses resulting from the 1996 forms approval process was sent to all districts
subject to acreage limitation and all other persons who submitted comments as part of that
process.
A proposed new rulemaking requiring the submittal of forms by certain farm operators was
published on November 18, 1998 (63 FR 64154). The Federal Register notice provided a 60-day
comment period for the public to comment on the proposed rulemaking and the proposed
information collection this rule would require. The comment period was to end
January 19, 1999, but because several people requested an extension of that deadline, we
accepted comments until February 18, 1999. After the close of the extended comment period,
we again received requests for an extension. The comment period was reopened until April 12,
1999 (64 FR 12141, March 11, 1999).
As with previous revisions to the forms, copies of the revised year 2000 RRA forms and
instructions to those forms were sent to all districts subject to acreage limitation and to all other
12

persons who requested copies. Since then, the RRA forms and instructions have not been
distributed to all districts subject to the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law
because Reclamation considered the revisions to be minor, especially when compared to the
RRA forms changes made in years 1997 and 2000. However, every year that Reclamation
renews OMB approval for its information collections, all districts subject to acreage limitation
receive a letter from Reclamation that announces the start of the public comment period. In that
letter is a copy of the corresponding Federal Register notice, a list of the proposed changes to the
RRA forms, a draft copy of any proposed new form (if any), and an announcement regarding the
availability of copies of the draft forms upon request. Regarding the current request for
information collection approval, all districts subject to acreage limitation received such a letter
from Reclamation dated December 4, 2008.
b. Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained
or those who must compile records should occur at least once very 3 years – even if the
collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be
circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances
should be explained.
This information collection contains forms that are completed by districts (using information
taken from the RRA forms submitted by landholders [OMB clearance number 1006-0005]) and
submitted annually to Reclamation as documentation of acreage limitation administration
(generally, whether the landholders in a particular district received Reclamation irrigation
water). The burden hour estimate associated with the forms in this information collection is an
average figure because no single district is representative of all districts. The number of
landholders in the districts subject to the acreage limitation provisions varies from fewer than 10
respondents in some districts to more than 4,000 respondents in others. Furthermore, the
information a particular district submits on the forms in this information collection can (and
frequently does) change from year to year. For example, landholders that lease land in a district
may no longer have such leases during the next water year for a variety of reasons, or an entity
that holds land in a particular district during one water year may sell all of its land before the
start of the next water year. In either case, the affected landholders would no longer be required
to submit RRA forms (OMB clearance number 1006-0005), and consequently there would be a
decrease in the amount of information the district would submit to Reclamation on the forms in
this information collection (1006-0006). In any given water year, a district can also see an
increase in the landholders identified on the forms in this information collection (e.g., new
landholders, parties to an annual lease, etc.). Throughout each year, Reclamation conducts
regularly scheduled water district reviews at district offices that are subject to the acreage
limitation provisions. Discussions between Reclamation RRA staff and district staff are held at
those reviews during which burden hour feedback is addressed. In other words, Reclamation
continually assesses burden hour estimates for the RRA forms through discussions with district
staff (i.e., the respondents of the forms in this information collection), and has done so since
these forms were first drafted in 1982.
9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.

13

No payments or gifts will be provided to respondents.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
Personal and financial information collected on these forms is protected under the Privacy
Act of 1974. The Privacy Act system of records notice associated with this information
collection is INTERIOR/WBR-31, Acreage Limitation.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as
sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly
considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers
the question necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to
be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to
obtain their consent.
No questions of a private or sensitive nature will be asked.
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of collection of information. The statement
should:
a. Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden,
and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies
should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden
estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable.
If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in
activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the
reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for
customary and usual business practices.
See response to item 12(b) [next paragraph].
b. If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour
burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens in item 13 of OMB Form
83-I.
Based on the number of current contracts, approximately 210 districts are required to
submit summary forms. This represents a net decrease of 15 respondents from previous years.
The reduction is due to the fact that districts either (a) were legislatively exempted or
(b) completed requirements in order to be exempt from the acreage limitation provisions of
Federal reclamation law.
The summary forms are to be submitted annually. If changes to the full-cost acreage or
excess land acreage are made during the irrigation season, then districts submit this new
information to Reclamation. In some regions, updated summary forms are submitted throughout
the year. We estimate the number of responses per respondent to be 1.25 annually, or 263 total
14

annual responses (210 districts multiplied by 1.25 responses per district). This represents a net
decrease of 18 responses from previous years.
The total estimated annual burden hours for this information are 10,520 hours. The
estimated annual burden hours per form are listed below:
Estimated
No. of
Respondents

Frequency
of
Response

Total
Annual
Responses

Burden
Hours Per
Response

Total
Burden
Hours

7-21SUMM-C and
tabulation sheets

174

1.25

218

40

8,720

7-21SUMM-R and
tabulation sheets

36

1.25

45

40

1,800

210

1.25

263

Form No.

TOTAL

10,520

We estimate that each district will on average require 40 person-hours of labor per
response annually to collect, file, and summarize the landholders’ forms. These 40 hours consist
of about 5 hours for reporting or disclosure burden and about 35 hours of recordkeeping burden.
The size of districts varies widely. The range is from over 4,000 respondents in a few districts
to fewer than 10 in others. Therefore, the total burden hour for 263 responses is 10,520 hours
(40 hours per response multiplied by 263 responses). This represents a net decrease of
720 burden hours from previous years resulting from existing legislation which gradually
reduces the number of respondents over time.
c. Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for
collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The
cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should
not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included in item 14.
The average annual cost per response is estimated to be $840. This is based on a wage
rate (including benefits multiplier of 1.4*) of $21.31 per hour (rounded) for clerical staff
multiplied by 40 hours per response. This wage rate figure was obtained from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) news release USDL: 09-0247, Table 5 (Sales and Office), dated March
12, 2009, (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf). It should be noted that this figure
represents costs to the average district; because districts vary widely in size, their costs related to
this information collection will also vary widely. The total annual cost to all districts is
estimated to be $220,920 ($840 per response multiplied by 263 responses). This represents a net
increase of $86,040 from previous years, solely due to updating of the wage rate figure used for
calculations. *BLS news release USDL: 08-1802, December 10, 2008.
13. Provide an estimate of the total annual [non-hour] cost burden to respondents or
recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any
hour burden shown in item 12 and 14.)
15

a. The cost estimate should be split into two components: (1) a total capital and
start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life), and (2) a total operation
and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into
account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the
information [including filing fees paid]. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate
major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of
capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be
incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for
collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling,
drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
The estimated total capital and start-up cost is $0.00. The only equipment necessary for
this information collection is file cabinets. Because this information collection has been ongoing
for over two decades, file cabinets will have already had been purchased by districts long before
now. All other purchases, such as computers, will be to achieve regulatory compliance with
requirements not associated with this information collection, or as part of customary and usual
business.
The estimated total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component is
estimated to be $877 per district. The only equipment necessary for this information collection
is file cabinets, which are not expected to have O&M costs associated with them.
Administrative costs are estimated at $750; postage and envelopes for mailing forms that are to
be summarized to the landholders is estimated at $1.00 per landholder multiplied by 127
landholders (the average number of landholders per district) which is about $127. It should be
noted that this figure represents cost to the average district; because districts vary widely in size,
their costs related to this information collection will also vary widely. This cost applies to all
210 districts; therefore, the total annual cost to the districts is estimated at about $184,170 ($877
per district multiplied by 210 districts). This represents a net decrease of $13,155 from previous
years (the current OMB inventory is $197,325).

16

b. If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost
burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting
out information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In
developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents
(fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use
existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing
the information collection, as appropriate.
Cost estimates will not vary.
c. Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or
portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance
with requirements not associated with this information collection, (3) for reasons other
than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of
customary and usual business or private practices.
Cost estimates do not include these purchases.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government. Also, provide a
description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of
hours, operation expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and
any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.
Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.
Annual cost to the Federal Government is estimated as follows:
Item
Printing
Personnel
Miscellaneous administrative costs
TOTAL

Costs
$11,000
$20,175 (500 person-hours x $40.35 per hour)*
$ 625
$31,800

* Wage rate figure is based on the following:
• The average grade level of staff included in this cost estimate is GS-11 step 5.
• The 2009 hourly base wage for a GS-11 step 5 Federal employee is $26.90.
• The total hourly wage with benefits is $40.35 ($26.90 base wage X 1.5* benefits
multiplier). *BLS news release USDL: 08-01802, December 10, 2008.
• Information was obtained from the Office of Personal Management
(http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/html/gs_h.asp)

17

15. Explain the reasons for program changes or adjustments reported in items 13 or 14
of the OMB Form 83-I.
We are reporting through this document a decrease in the hour burden of the information
collection budget due to the exemption (from the acreage limitation provisions of Federal
reclamation law) of districts through exemption actions taken by such districts and legislative
activities. In general, the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law do not apply
once construction repayment obligations for irrigation facilities are completed. At that time, the
RRA forms requirements are no longer applicable.
16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for
tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical technique that will be used.
Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of
the collection of information, completion of report, publication date, and other actions.
The results of this information collection are not intended for publication.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
Because these forms are to be submitted annually, Reclamation would like to print the year
the forms apply to on the forms and instructions. If Reclamation also displays the OMB
expiration date on the forms, we feel it may confuse the respondents as to which date reflects the
water year and signifies a current form. This is a particular problem because before 1996,
Reclamation did not print the year for which the form was applicable, and the districts relied
solely on the OMB expiration date to determine if it was using a current form. Therefore,
Reclamation is requesting an exemption to not display the expiration date of OMB approval of
the form. This exemption request has been continuously granted since it was first approved as
part of the approval process completed in 1996 and 1997.
In addition, we are requesting the expiration date of the OMB approval to coincide with the
closure date of Reclamation’s water year, (December 31, 2011) instead of the usual 3 years from
the date of approval. This OMB approval, if granted, will apply to the RRA forms for the 2010
and 2011 water years, thereby shortening the usual 3-year OMB approval timeframe to 2 years,
in the interest of preserving the correlation of the forms in this IC to the water years to which
they will apply. Another request for OMB approval will be initiated for this IC in advance of the
2012 and 2013 water years.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in item 19,
“Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions,” of OMB Form 83-I.
No exceptions to the certification statement are being requested.

18

ATTACHMENT 1
List of information collection questions and justifications