22078 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices

substances to the undercover agents

without legitimate medical purpose and

not in the usual course of professional

medical practice. Further, Respondent’s

recordkeeping practices, medical

examinations and patient history

procedures were extremely deficient.

Finally, the Deputy Administrator

concurs with the administrative law

judge’s finding that a negative inference

was warranted from Respondent’s

decision not to testify.

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of

Registration, AS2512374, previously

issued to Michael G. Sargent, M.D, be,

and it hereby is, revoked, and any

pending applications for such

registration be, and hereby are, denied.

This order is effective June 5, 1995.

Dated: April 28, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–10927 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Reports; Availability, etc.: Climate

Change; Second Assessment by

Climate Change Intergovernmental

Panel

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of the availability of draft

report and request for comment.

SUMMARY: Working Group I of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) has prepared a draft

Second Assessment on Climate Change.

The IPCC Secretariat requires comments

on this report from national

governments so that the Secretariat can

meet its obligations to member

governments of the IPCC. The U.S.

Government is expected to receive its

copy of the draft assessment for formal

government comment on May 8, 1995.

The U.S. Subcommittee on Global

Change Research (SGCR) is responsible

for coordinating the preparation of the

comments of the United States

Government. Through this notice, the

SGCR is announcing the availability of

the draft Second Assessment upon its

receipts from IPCC and is requesting

comments on the draft report by June 2,

1995 from experts and interested groups

and individuals. These comments will

be reviewed, combined, and

incorporated as appropriate, in the

process of preparing the set of official

U.S. comments to the IPCC.

DATES: Written comments (hard copy

and if possible on a 3.5-inch diskette in

either Microsoft Word or Word Perfect

format) on the draft Second Assessment

should be received on or before June 2,

1995. The SGCR cannot extend this

deadline because the member countries

of the IPCC have established a strict

timetable for the review process.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted either by mail to: IPCC WG I

Comments, Office of the U.S. Global

Change Research Program, 300 D Street,

SW., Suite 840, Washington, DC 20024,

or by E-mail in ASCII format on Inter

net to: ‘‘wg1@usgcrp.gov’’. A list of

chapters making up the draft Second

Assessment is included with this notice.

Review is sought by those individuals

and groups having specific expertise or

interest in the various aspects of the

assessment. Copies of individual

chapters making up the draft Second

Assessment can be obtained by: (1)

Telephone request to Mr. Earley Green

at (202) 651–8240; (2) sending E-mail to

‘‘office@usgcrp.gov’’; (3) faxing a request

to (202) 554–6715; or (4) sending a letter

to the USGCRP Office directed to Mr.

Earley Green at the address shown

above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Michael C. MacCracken, Office of the

U.S. Global Change Research Program,

at 202–651–8250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) was jointly

established in 1988 by the United

Nations Environment Programme and

the World Meteorological Organization

to conduct periodic assessments of the

state of knowledge concerning global

climate change. The IPCC has formed

working groups to study various aspects

of climate change. Working Group I

addresses the state of the science

concerning what is happening and is

projected to happen to the climate;

Working Group II addresses the state of

the science concerning (i) vulnerability

to and impacts of climate change and

(ii) adaptation and mitigation strategies;

and Working Group III addresses the

state of science and understanding

concerning economics and cross-cutting

issues associated with climate change.

Each Working Group is charged with

issuing periodic assessments. The first

Scientific Assessment of Climate

Change, for example, was prepared in

1990. Working Group I provided a

supplementary report in 1992 and a

report on radiative forcing of climate

change in 1994.

Periodic assessment reports such as

these provide a comprehensive

statement of the state of knowledge

concerning topics such as scientific

information, environmental impacts,

response strategies, and other issues

concerning climate change.

II. Public Input Process

The member countries of the IPCC

have established a timetable that

includes a brief period for comments

from governments so that the IPCC

Secretariat can meet its obligations for a

timely completion of the IPCC Second

Assessment. The Subcommittee on

Global Change Research is responsible

for coordinating preparation of the U.S.

Government response, and through this

notice is seeking the views of experts

and interested groups and individuals to

help in the formulation of its response.

Comments that are provided will be

reviewed, integrated, and used, as

appropriate, in the preparation of the

official U.S. comments. An information

sheet providing specific requests for

formatting submissions will be provided

with each mailing of a chapter. In this

review process, the emphasis should be

on providing detailed recommendations

on specific chapters for which the

reviewer has established expertise or

interest. To be most useful, comments

should be specific in suggesting

wording changes to the text of a

particular paragraph or chapter and,

where appropriate, offer supporting

information and peer-reviewed

references supporting the proposed

changes. Comments on the overall tone

and scientific validity of the chapter and

comments expressing agreement and

disagreement with specific major points

in the Executive Summary of the

chapters are also solicited. Reviewers

should request for review those specific

chapters of the draft IPCC Working

Group I Second Assessment for which

they have expertise or special interest.

The materials available for review

include 11 chapters and a Summary for

Policymakers. In addition to a specific

chapter, a copy of the draft Summary for

Policymakers will be provided for each

reviewer in order to provide an

opportunity for the reviewer to consider

the consistency of the chapter and the

selection and representation of its major

points in the draft Summary for

Policymakers.

Chapter 1 The Climate System—An

Overview

Chapter 2 Update of 1994 WG I report

2.1 CO2 and the carbon cycle

2.2 Other trace gases and

atmospheric chemistry

2.3 Aerosols

2.4 Radiative forcing
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices 22079

2.5 Trace gas radiative forcing

indices

Chapter 3 Observed climate variability

and change

Chapter 4 Climate processes

Chapter 5 Climate models—validation

Chapter 6 Climate models—

projections of future climate

Chapter 7 Changes in sea-level

Chapter 8 Detection of climate change,

and attribution of causes

Chapter 9 Terrestrial biotic responses

to environmental change and

feedbacks to climate

Chapter 10 Marine biotic responses to

environmental change and

feedbacks to climate

Chapter 11 Advancing our

understanding

III. Public Availability of Comments

Subsequent to the US assembly of its

comments, all comments received will

be available for public inspection in the

NSF Library, which is located on the

second floor of the NSF building at 4201

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA

(adjacent to the Ballston Metro station).

Robert W. Corell,

Assistant Director for Geosciences, NSF, and

Chair, Subcommittee on Global Change

Research.

[FR Doc. 95–10933 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Final Disposition of SEP LessonsLearned Issues; Issued

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of issuance.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has issued Generic

Letter 95–04 which informs licensees of

nuclear power reactors about the final

disposition of the 27 lessons-learned

issues found in the Systematic

Evaluation Program (SEP). This generic

letter is available in the Public

Document Rooms under accession

number 9504210293.

DATES: The generic letter was issued on

April 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Not applicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sheri R. Peterson at (301) 415–2752.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 28th day of

April, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brian K. Grimes,

Director, Division of Project Support, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–11028 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362]

Southern California Edison, et al.; San

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,

Units 2 and 3, Issuance of Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has acted on a Petition for

action under 10 CFR 2.206 received by

Ted Dougherty, dated August 10, 1994,

for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3.

The Petitioner requested that the NRC

cause the shutdown and dismantlement

of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station because of concerns regarding

(1) the vulnerability of the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station to

earthquakes because of nearby fault

lines and (2) a newspaper article

concerning the threat of vehicle bombs

and the Commission’s recent rule

requiring nuclear generating plants to

install antiterrorist barriers within 18

months.

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation has determined that

the request should be denied for the

reasons stated in the ‘‘Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206’’ (DD–95–

06), the complete text of which follows

this notice, and which is available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20555, and at the local

public document room located at the

University of California Main Library,

P.O. Box 19577, Irvine, California

92713.

A copy of this Decision has been filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission’s review in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the

Commission’s regulations. As provided

by this regulation, this Decision will

constitute the final action of the

Commission 25 days after the date of

issuance unless the Commission, on its

own motion, institutes review of the

Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

I. Introduction

On August 10, 1994, Mr. Ted

Dougherty (the Petitioner) submitted a

letter to the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission or NRC)

requesting a shutdown of the San

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

(SONGS). The Commission determined

to act on this request pursuant to 10

CFR 2.206. The request was based on

concerns regarding the vulnerability of

SONGS to earthquakes because of the

existence of nearby fault lines, and

concerns regarding the defensibility of

SONGS to a terrorist threat.

On September 22, 1994, I informed

the Petitioner that the Petition had been

referred to this Office for action

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the

Commission’s regulations. I also

informed the Petitioner that the NRC

would take appropriate action within a

reasonable time regarding the

Petitioner’s request.

My Decision in this matter follows.

II. Background

The Petitioner provided as basis for

the request (1) a letter to the Governor

of California wherein the Petitioner

expressed concerns regarding the

vulnerability of SONGS to earthquakes

and (2) a Los Angeles Times article

concerning the threat of vehicle bombs

and the Commission’s recent rule

requiring nuclear generating plants to

install antiterrorist barriers within 18

months.

III. Discussion

A. Vulnerability of SONGS to

Earthquakes

The Petitioner asserts that SONGS is

vulnerable to a deep ocean quake as

well as a magnitude 8 earthquake (or

greater) on the Newport-Inglewood

fault. He asserts that human error

following an earthquake of this

magnitude could result in failure of the

plant’s safety systems to protect the

plant, thereby resulting in a meltdown.

Before licensing SONGS (and all

nuclear plants), the NRC reviewed the

design of the facility including its

ability to withstand the effects of natural

phenomena such as earthquakes,

tornadoes, and hurricanes without loss

of capability to perform the safety

functions. Appendix A (Criterion 2) to

10 CFR part 50 states that the design

basis for the nuclear power plant should

reflect the most severe of the natural

phenomena that have been historically