Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 3095

VIII. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)], EPA must

determine whether a regulatory action is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. section 601–612,

Pub. L. 96–354, September 19, 1980),

whenever an agency publishes a General

Notice of Rulemaking for any proposed

or final rule, it must prepare and make

available for public comment a

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) that

describes the impact of the rule on small

entities (i.e., small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility

analysis is required, however, if the

head of the Agency certifies that the rule

will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This rule will not require the

purchase of new instruments or

equipment. The regulation requires no

new reports beyond those now required.

This rule will not have an adverse

economic impact on small entities since

its effect will be to provide greater

flexibility to all of the regulated

community by providing an increased

choice of appropriate analytical

methods for RCRA applications,

including small entities. Therefore, in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. section 605(b),

I hereby certify that this rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Thus, the regulation does not require an

RFA.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no additional reporting,

notification, or recordkeeping

provisions in this rule. Such provisions,

were they included, would be submitted

for approval to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 260

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous waste, Incorporation by

reference.

Dated: December 13, 1994.

Elliott P. Laws,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, Chapter I, of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as set

forth below:

PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

1. The authority citation for part 260

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921–

6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939,

and 6974.

Subpart B—Definitions

2. Section 260.11 (a) is amended by

revising the ‘‘Test Methods for

Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/

Chemical Methods’’ reference to read as

follows:

§ 260.11 References.

(a) * * *

‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid

Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’

EPA Publication SW–846 [Third Edition

(November, 1986), as amended by

Updates I (July, 1992), II (September,

1994), and IIA (August, 1993)]. The

Third Edition of SW–846 and Updates

I, II, and IIA (document number 955–

001–00000–1) are available from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402, (202) 783–3238.

Copies may be inspected at the Library,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–821 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–5138–9]

Michigan: Final Authorization of

Revisions to State Hazardous Waste

Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final determination on

application of Michigan for final

authorization.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) approves

the revisions to the State of Michigan’s

authorized hazardous waste

management program resulting from the

reorganization of the Michigan

Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR) by Executive Order 1991–31.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Judy Feigler, RCRA Regulatory

Development Section, U.S. EPA, Region

5, 77 W. Jackson (HRM–7J), Chicago,

Illinois 60604, or telephone (312) 886–

4179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

On October 21, 1994, EPA published

in the Federal Register a notice

announcing the preliminary

determination to approve the State of

Michigan’s hazardous waste

management program, as revised,

pursuant to Section 3006(b) of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) and 40 CFR 271.21(b)(4).

States with final authorization under

Section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6929(b) have a continuing obligation to

maintain a hazardous waste program

that is equivalent to, consistent with,

and no less stringent than the Federal

hazardous waste management program.

When either EPA’s or a State program’s

controlling statutory or regulatory

authority is modified or supplemented,

or when certain other changes occur,

revisions to State hazardous waste

management programs may be

necessary. The procedures that States

and EPA must follow for revision of

State programs are found at 40 CFR

271.21(b).

The State of Michigan initially

received final authorization for its

hazardous waste management program

effective on October 30, 1986 (51 FR

36804–36805, October 16, 1986).

Subsequently, Michigan received

authorization for revisions to its

program, effective on January 23, 1990

(54 FR 225, November 24, 1989); June

24, 1991 (56 FR 18517, April 23, 1991);
3096 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1 It should be noted, though, that public

involvement in RCRA activities is receiving

increased visibility. On June 2, 1994, EPA

published in the Federal Register (59 FR 28680–

28711) a proposed rule that would require earlier

and more meaningful public participation in the

RCRA permitting process. This Agency rulemaking

is anticipated to be finalized the summer of 1995.

When this rule becomes finalized, States will be

required to be authorized for these activities.

However, for the time being, the State of Michigan

is meeting all the current requirements for public

participation under the Federal RCRA program.

and November 30, 1993 (58 FR 51244,

October 1, 1993). Michigan’s Program

Description dated June 30, 1984, and

addenda thereto dated June 30, 1986;

September 12, 1988; July 31, 1990; and

August 10, 1992, which were a

component of the State’s original final

authorization and subsequent revision

applications, specified that the

Michigan Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR) was the agency

responsible for implementing

Michigan’s hazardous waste

management program. The Program

Description indicated that the Site

Review Board (SRB) also had authority

to approve or deny construction permit

applications.

On November 8, 1991, the Governor

of Michigan issued Executive Order

1991–31 (EO 1991–31). EO 1991–31,

which became effective on September 2,

1993, provides that:

All the statutory authority, power, duties,

functions, and responsibilities of the

Commission of Natural Resources and the

Department of Natural Resources * * * and

of the director of the Department of Natural

Resources and of the agencies, boards and

commissions contained therein * * * are

hereby transferred to the director of a new

Michigan Department of Natural Resources,

by a Type II transfer, as defined by Section

3 of Act No. 380 of the Public Acts of 1965,

being Section 16.103 of the Michigan

Compiled Laws.

EO 1991–31, Section I(A)(1).

EO 1991–31 also affected the SRB. EO

1991–31 also provides that:

* * * the functions, duties, and

responsibilities of the Site Review Boards

* * * are transferred by a Type II transfer

* * * and a Site Review Board shall be

advisory to the director of the new Michigan

Department of Natural Resources.

EO 1991–31, Section III(C)(9). The

Director of the MDNR now has the

authority to approve or deny

construction permit applications.

Pursuant to EPA’s request, on March

10 and August 18, 1994, Michigan

submitted documents to EPA that were

necessary for EPA to determine the

impact of EO 1991–31 upon the

authorized State hazardous waste

management program. The documents

consisted of a modified Program

Description, an addendum to the

Attorney General’s Statement, and an

addendum to the Memorandum of

Agreement between the State and EPA

outlining the policies, responsibilities

and procedures under which the

program is administered. Michigan in

its submittal indicated that there had

been no substantive changes in

Michigan’s hazardous waste

management program as a result of EO

1991–31. Rather, according to Michigan,

EO 1991–31 resulted in some internal

reorganization of the MDNR.

Based upon review of the documents

submitted by Michigan, EPA made a

preliminary determination to approve

Michigan’s hazardous waste

management program, as revised,

pursuant to 271.21(b). On October 21,

1994, EPA published a notice in the

Federal Register announcing EPA’s

proposed decision. The notice also

stated that the proposed decision would

be subject to public review and

comment, and announced the

availability of Michigan’s application

for public inspection at two locations in

Michigan.

B. Comments

In response to the October 21, 1994,

notice, EPA received comments from

the National Wildlife Federation (NWF),

who disagreed with EPA’s proposed

approval of Michigan’s hazardous waste

management program revisions. A

summary of NWF’s comments and

EPA’s response is provided below:

In its first comment, NWF claims that

Michigan has failed to demonstrate that

its reorganized program complies with

the minimum Federal requirements

concerning public participation of

Section 7004(b) of RCRA. The

commenter noted that in changing the

role of the SRB from a decision-making

body to an advisory body, EO 1991–31

transferred the permit decision-making

power to the Director of the MDNR.

According to the commenter, the MDNR

Director, unlike the former SRB, is not

subject to Michigan’s Open Meetings

Act. The commenter states that public

access to monitor the Director is limited

by the reorganization, and Michigan’s

public has no right to observe and

attend the meetings at which key

permitting decisions are made.

Therefore, the commenter believes that

the ‘‘new MDNR’’ fails to encourage

public participation.

EPA does not agree that this change

represents a change in the public

participation requirements of

Michigan’s hazardous waste program

that is inconsistent with RCRA Section

7004(b)(2). Michigan, in its submittal to

EPA of information on March 10 and

August 18, 1994, demonstrated that EO

1991–31 did not substantially alter the

public participation processes or affect

the authorized State program’s

equivalence or consistency to the

Federal program. The State’s public

participation provisions include the

following: notice of the State’s intent to

issue a permit through publication in

major local newspapers of general

circulation; broadcasts of such notice

over local radio stations; written notice

to certain State and local governmental

agencies; at least a 45-day public

comment period; and an informal public

hearing if one is requested during the

comment period (see Michigan

Administrative Code Sections

R299.9513 and R 299.9514). The change

in the applicability of the State’s Open

Meetings Act did not constitute a

change in the State hazardous waste

program, since the State’s Open

Meetings Act has never been relied

upon by the State to meet the Federal

guidelines for public participation (see

40 CFR 271.14 and 124). RCRA Section

3006(b) requires States to maintain

equivalency to the Federal program;

however, States can also pass legislation

that is more stringent than the Federal

programs. The Michigan Open Meetings

Act would fall in that category since it

is a State law that goes beyond the

Federal requirements for public

participation. Consequently, the change

in the applicability of the State’s Open

Meetings Act to the MDNR Director

does not represent a change in

Michigan’s hazardous waste

management program. Any direct

comments on the Michigan Open

Meetings Act should be referred to the

State of Michigan.1

The commenter also suggested that

EO 1991–31 affected the public

participation requirements, since it

changed the manner in which the State

develops administrative rules

implementing Michigan’s hazardous

waste program. The Director of the

MDNR now establishes the

administrative rules by which the

program is administered rather than the

Michigan Natural Resources

Commission (MNRC). The commenter

stated that the Director of the MDNR,

unlike MNRC, is not subject to

Michigan’s Open Meetings Act and

therefore the Director can make final

decisions on administrative rules

pertaining to the hazardous waste

management program in closed

meetings and the substance of those

meetings need not be recorded. The

commenter suggested that this

represents a significant change in the

way the State develops administrative
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 3097

rules for Michigan’s hazardous waste

management program.

EPA does not agree that this apparent

change in the manner in which

administrative rules are developed

represents a change in Michigan’s

hazardous waste management program

that is inconsistent with RCRA Section

7004(b). A State’s Federally authorized

hazardous waste management program

consists of the statutes and rules which

govern the State’s program. EPA has no

role to play in overseeing or dictating

how those statutes and rules are

developed. Instead, EPA’s role is to

determine whether the statutes and

rules which comprise the program

comply with minimum Federal

requirements for authorized programs

(e.g., providing public notice, hearings,

and comment periods on permit

decisions). If the State desires to change

those statutes or rules, EPA has no role

in determining the manner in which

those statutes or rules are changed, so

long as the State submits the proposed

changes to EPA for review.

Consequently, this change in the

manner in which the State develops

administrative rules is outside the scope

of EPA’s review of the State’s hazardous

waste management program under 40

CFR 271.

The second comment made by NWF

is that, pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21(c),

whenever a State transfers all or part of

the approved hazardous waste

management program from the

approved State agency to any other State

agency, the new agency is not

authorized to administer the program

until approved by EPA. The commenter

claimed that EO 1991–31 consolidated

various departments and agencies into a

‘‘new’’ MDNR, since the Director of the

MDNR has assumed, under a Type III

transfer, all the powers, duties and

authorities which were formerly

allocated to the Hazardous Waste

Management Planning Committee

(HWMPC), as well as all powers

(including sole power to issue permits),

duties and authority formerly allocated

to the SRB, under a Type II transfer. The

commenter also claimed that this

reorganization is a ‘‘transfer’’ within the

purview of 40 CFR 271.21(c), because

the ‘‘old MDNR’’ and the ‘‘new MDNR,’’

as well as the SRB, HWMPC, and the

Director of the ‘‘new MDNR’’ are each

separate ‘‘agencies’’ within the meaning

of 40 CFR 271.21(c). The commenter

also claimed that both the State courts

and the State of Michigan have

indicated that the reorganization

constitutes a revision and transfer.

EPA has determined that the revisions

to Michigan’s program are consistent

with the requirements of RCRA and its

implementing regulations. Based on the

information available to us, EPA has

determined that the reorganization of

Michigan’s hazardous waste

management program resulting from EO

1991–31 constitutes a program revision

requiring appropriate EPA review and

approval. However, EPA has determined

that the reorganization of the MDNR

resulting from EO 1991–31 does not

constitute a transfer to another agency

for the purposes of 40 CFR 271.21(c).

EPA recognizes that the Michigan

Supreme Court has held that EO 1991–

31 created a ‘‘new’’ MDNR. Dodak v.

Engler, 443 Mich. 560 (1993). However,

the Michigan Attorney General, in a

letter dated November 8, 1993, has

stated that the Executive Order did not

create a new agency. In any event, the

question of whether MDNR remained

the same agency or whether it became

‘‘any other State agency’’ as a result of

1991–31 is not at issue in this

determination. The MDNR, as described

above, has been the approved State

agency for the implementation of

Michigan RCRA hazardous waste

management program, both before and

after the Executive Order. Whether

MDNR is considered to be a ‘‘new’’

agency under State law is not

controlling with respect to whether

there has been a transfer of authority

from an ‘‘approved State agency to any

other State agency.’’ Instead, it is EPA’s

regulations which are controlling in this

issue.

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 271.21(c)

do not provide clear guidance on

whether the reorganization and

consolidation of environmental

programs accomplished by EO 1991–31

constitutes a ‘‘transfer’’ of authority

requiring prior EPA approval. The

preamble to the 1986 State hazardous

waste program regulations similarly

fails to provide any such guidance. (See

51 FR 33712, September 22, 1986).

However, the 1980 preamble to the final

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System State program rule,

in addressing language at 40 CFR

123.62(c), which is similar to that at 40

CFR 271.21(c), stated:

One commenter requested that there be no

formal EPA review of nominal changes in the

structure and responsibilities of State

agencies administering an approved program.

It was not the intent of the proposal nor is

it of these final regulations to require EPA

review in such cases [’’nominal changes’’ in

State agencies]. Only when controlling

Federal or State statutory or regulatory

authority is modified or supplemented, or

when the State proposes to transfer all or part

of a program from an approved State agency

to another State agency may EPA approval be

necessary. Changes solely to the internal

structure of an approved State agency, with

no changes to the overall authority of the

agency, do not require EPA approval.

45 FR 33290, 33384 (May 19, 1980).

In addition, EPA’s guidance to States

on developing applications for revisions

to their authorized State programs, the

State Authorization Manual (SAM)

(OSWER Directive 9540.00–9A, October

1990) is also consistent with the above

preamble language. The SAM, on page

2–2, states that: ‘‘. . . changes within

the internal structure of the approved

State agency, with no changes in the

overall authority of the agency, do not

require EPA approval.’’ EPA interprets

the language of 40 CFR 271.21(c) as not

applying to changes within the internal

structure that do not substantively

change the overall authority of the

agency. The controlling authorities

under State law pertaining to the RCRA

hazardous waste management program

were not affected by EO 1991–31, nor

were the overall functions or structure

of the Michigan hazardous waste

management program substantially

changed. Therefore, EPA does not view

the reorganization of the MDNR

resulting from EO 1991–31 as a transfer

under the purview of 40 CFR 271.21(c).

In regards to the Michigan HWMPC,

that department has never been

considered to be part of Michigan’s

authorized State hazardous waste

program. The HWMPC was established

by Section 8A of Michigan Public Act

64 for the purpose of developing a State

hazardous waste management plan. The

plan was adopted by the Michigan

Natural Resources Commission on

January 1, 1992. Abolishment of the

HWMPC by EO 1991–31 and transfer of

the all of its statutory authority, powers,

and duties to the MDNR did not impact

the State’s hazardous waste

management program, since RCRA does

not require States to develop such a

plan.

In regards to the SRB, EPA does not

agree that the transfer of permit

decision-making authority from the SRB

to the Director of the ‘‘new’’ MDNR

constitutes a transfer between agencies

under the purview of 40 CFR 271.21(c).

As described above, the prior EPA

approval requirement in 40 CFR

271.21(c) applies in situations where

such restructuring or consolidation

impacts the controlling authorities by

which a State implements the RCRA

hazardous waste management program.

EO 1991–31 did not affect the State’s

controlling authorities by which the

State implements the RCRA hazardous

waste management program, but rather

it transferred decision-making

responsibilities within the authorized

State hazardous waste management
3098 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

program. Consequently, EPA does not

view the change in roles of the SRB and

the MDNR Director as a transfer of

authorities between agencies under the

purview of 40 CFR 271.21(c).

The third comment made by NWF is

not related in any way to EO 1991–31.

The commenter suggested that

Michigan’s program has wrongfully

failed to eliminate the exemption for

municipal waste combustion ash

addressed in Chicago v. Environmental

Defense Fund, 114 S.Ct. 1588 (1994).

According to the commenter,

Michigan’s reorganized RCRA program

is therefore not in conformance with the

Federal RCRA program, and authority

for it should be withdrawn pursuant to

40 CFR 271.22. In the present matter,

EPA requested that Michigan submit

information to EPA pursuant to 40 CFR

271.21(d) on whether any revisions

occurred in Michigan’s Federally

authorized hazardous waste

management program as a result of EO

1991–31. EPA has not requested

information pertaining to any other

issues regarding Michigan’s hazardous

waste management program. Therefore,

EPA is limiting its review to the effects

of EO 1991–31.

EPA appreciates the comments

received on these matters, has

forwarded them to Michigan, and will

consider them in the context of EPA’s

ongoing oversight of Michigan’s

hazardous waste management program.

If, in the course of its ongoing oversight,

EPA determines that additional program

revisions have occurred, EPA will take

the appropriate steps as set forth at 40

CFR 271.21 to review and approve or

disapprove of the revisions.

C. Decision

I conclude that Michigan’s

application for final authorization meets

all of the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by RCRA.

Accordingly, Michigan is granted final

authorization to operate its hazardous

waste program as revised. Michigan

now has responsibility for permitting

treatment, storage, and disposal

facilities within its borders and carrying

out other aspects of the RCRA program

described in its revised program

application, subject to the limitations of

the HSWA. Michigan also has primary

enforcement responsibilities, although

EPA retains the right to conduct

inspections under Section 3007 of

RCRA and to take enforcement actions

under Sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of

RCRA.

D. Incorporation by Reference

EPA incorporates by reference

authorized State programs in 40 CFR

part 272 to provide notice to the public

of the scope of the authorized program

in each State. Incorporation by reference

of these revisions to the Michigan

program will be completed at a later

date.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this

authorization will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, nor will it

impose any new burdens on small

entities. This rule, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies

must consider the paperwork burden

imposed by any information request

contained in a proposed rule or a final

rule. This rule will not impose any

information requirements upon the

regulated community.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous waste, Indian lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

Authority

This notice is issued under the

authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act

as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926,

6974(b).

Dated: January 4, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–823 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Public Land Order 7110

[AK–932–1410–00; AA–6649]

Withdrawal of Public Lands for Atka

Village Selection; Alaska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

SUMMARY: This order withdraws

approximately 13,968.61 acres of public

lands located within the Alaska

Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge or

the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife

Refuge, from all forms of appropriation

under the public land laws, including

the mining and mineral leasing laws,

pursuant to section 22(j)(2) of the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act. This

action also reserves the lands for

selection by the Atxam Corporation, the

village corporation for Atka. This

withdrawal is for a period of 120 days;

however, any lands selected shall

remain withdrawn by the order until

they are conveyed. Any lands described

herein that are not selected by the

corporation will remain withdrawn as

part of the Alaska Peninsula National

Wildlife Refuge or the Alaska Maritime

National Wildlife Refuge, pursuant to

the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act, and will be subject to

the terms and conditions of any

withdrawal of record.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue

A. Wolf, BLM Alaska State Office, 222

W. 7th Avenue, No. 13, Anchorage,

Alaska 99513–7599, 907–271–5477.

By virtue of the authority vested in

the Secretary of the Interior by Section

22(j)(2) of the Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1621(j)(2)

(1988), it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the

following described public lands

located within the Alaska Peninsula

Wildlife Refuge or the Alaska Maritime

National Wildlife Refuge, are hereby

withdrawn from all forms of

appropriation under the public land

laws, including the mining and mineral

leasing laws, and are hereby reserved for

selection under Section 12 of the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C.

1611 (1988), by the Atxam Corporation,

the village corporation for Atka:

Seward Meridian

T. 52 S., R. 72 W.,

Secs. 15 to 34, inclusive.

T. 75 S., R. 121 W.,

Secs. 28, 33, 34, and 35.

T. 76 S., R. 121 W.,