Notices. Notice; Finding of No Significant Impact

6,779 words·~31 min read·/register/2007/02/02/07-474

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Prisons Notice of the Availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact for the Criminal Alien Requirement VI AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice. ACTION: Notice; Finding of No Significant Impact. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons

(BOP)announces the availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) concerning the Criminal Alien Requirement VI (CAR VI). The BOP is seeking flexibility in managing its current shortage of beds by contracting for those services with non-federal facilities to house federal inmates. This approach provides the BOP with flexibility to meet population capacity needs in a timely fashion, conform with federal law, and maintain fiscal responsibility, while successfully attaining the mission of the BOP. Initially, the BOP proposed to contract with multiple public and private corporations to house approximately 7,000 Federal, low-security, adult male, non-U.S. citizen, criminal aliens in existing Contractor-Owned/Contractor-Operated facilities located in Arizona, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Texas. The awards would be granted to the responsible offerors whose offers are found to be most advantageous to the Government. Five existing facilities, have been offered in response to the BOP's solicitation for services. The five responses provided a combined total of 10,243 beds. Environmental impacts of each facility have been evaluated in a combined Environmental Assessment

(EA)based primarily on information provided by the Offerors. The EA evaluated the full effects of the potentially available of 10,243 inmate beds. Background Information Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), BOP has prepared EA to contract with multiple public and private corporations to house approximately 7,000 federal, low-security, adult male, non-U.S. citizen, criminal aliens in existing Contractor-Owned/Contractor-Operated facilities located in Arizona, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Texas. Five existing facilities, have been offered in response to the BOP's solicitation for services. The five responses provided a combined total of 10,243 beds. The EA was published on December 12, 2006, for a 30-day comment period and prepared pursuant to NEPA. Project Information The BOP is responsible for carrying out judgements of the Federal courts whenever a period of confinement is ordered. Subsequently, the mission of the BOP is to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. Approximately 162,200 inmates are currently housed within the 114 federal correctional institutions that have levels of security ranging from minimum to maximum; a number exceeding the combined rated capacities of all federal correctional facilities. Measures being taken to manage the growth of the federal inmate population include construction of new institutions, acquisition and adaptation of facilities originally intended for other purposes, expansion and improvement of existing correctional facilities, and expanded use of contract beds. Adding capacity through these various means allows the BOP to work toward the long-term goal of reduced system-wide crowding. Alternatives Considered The No Action alternative is defined as a decision not to proceed with the proposed action to award a contract to house the described population. Instead, the BOP would continue the current and long-standing arrangement whereby low-security, adult male, criminal alien inmate populations are housed in facilities owned and operated by the BOP as well as with state, local, and private residential reentry centers and in alternative confinement. Adoption of the No Action alternative would avoid the potential impacts associated with use of a Contractor-Owned/Contractor-Operated correctional facility to house low-security, federal inmates. Under the No Action alternative, the beneficial impacts on local and regional economies resulting from operational budget expenditures at potentially vacant or underutilized correctional facilities would not occur. The loss of jobs is likely at some facilities under the No Action alternative. The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the BOP's Action alternative and would not address the demand for additional capacity to house the increasing federal inmate population. Five locations were evaluated in the EA. Because any given facility could be awarded a number of inmates up to its capacity, potential impacts at each facility were evaluated based upon its maximum possible capacity. The facilities and respective inmate populations evaluated were: Big Spring Correctional Center (BSCC), located in Big Springs, Texas, evaluated for its maximum capacity under this action to provide 3,307 beds. Eden Detention Center (EDC), Eden, Texas, evaluated for its maximum capacity to provide 1,556 beds. Giles W. Dalby Correction Center

(GDCC)of Post, Texas, evaluated for its maximum capacity to provide 1,670 beds. Pine Prairie Correctional Facility (PPCF), Pine Prairie, Louisiana, evaluated for its maximum capacity to provide 1,090 beds. Reeves County Detention Center (RCDC), located in Pecos, Texas, evaluated for its maximum capacity to provide 2,620 beds. The impacts of the Action alternative on the environment were considered in an EA published on December 12, 2006, and prepared pursuant to NEPA. The EA evaluated the full effects of the potentially available of 10,243 inmate beds. Review of the EA with the necessary mitigation has led to a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as that phrase is defined pursuant to NEPA. The Action alternative would result in negligible impacts to public services of host communities. There would be no significant adverse impacts to surrounding land uses, utility systems, traffic patterns or other community considerations. No significant adverse on-site impacts as defined pursuant to NEPA are anticipated as a result of the Action alternative. After review of the comments received from interested agencies and local citizens concerning the EA, the BOP signed a FONSI for the Action alternative. Notice of Availability BOP provided written notices of the availability of the EA in five newspapers with local and regional circulations, and through five local public libraries. The BOP also distributed approximately 175 copies

(each)of the EA to Federal and State agencies, state and local governments, elected officials, interested organizations, and individuals. Availability of The Finding of No Significant Impact The Finding of No Significant Impact and other information regarding this project are available upon request. To request a copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact, please contact: Pamela J. Chandler, Chief, or Issac J. Gaston, Site Selection Specialist, Site Selection and Environmental Review Branch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. *Tel:* 202-514-6470/ *Fax:* 202-616-6024/ *E-mail: pchandler@bop.gov-igaston@bop.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela J. Chandler, or Issac J. Gaston, Federal Bureau of Prisons. Dated: January 26, 2007. Issac J. Gaston, Site Selection Specialist, Site Selection and Environmental Review Branch. [FR Doc. E7-1624 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-5-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,197] C&C Smith Lumber Company, Inc., Summerhill, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated November 29, 2006, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on November 2, 2006, and published in the **Federal Register** on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67650). Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:

(1)If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;

(2)if it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or

(3)if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The petition for the workers of C&C Smith Lumber Company, Inc., Summerhill, Pennsylvania engaged in production of furniture parts was denied because the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met, nor was there a shift in production from that firm to a foreign country. The “contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's customers. The survey revealed no imports of furniture parts in 2004, 2005 and January through September 2006. The subject firm did not import furniture parts nor did they shift production to a foreign country during the relevant period. The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their jobs as a direct result of a loss of customers in the furniture industry. The petitioner alleges that major declining customers of the subject firm which manufacture furniture decreased purchases of various furniture parts and components from the C&C Smith Lumber Company, Inc., Summerhill, Pennsylvania because their business was in its turn negatively impacted by increased imports of furniture. Therefore, the petitioner concludes that because sales and production of furniture parts at the subject firm have been negatively impacted by increasing presence of foreign imports of furniture on the market, workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA. In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey of the subject firm's major declining customers regarding their purchases of furniture parts and components. The survey revealed that the declining customers did not increase their imports of furniture parts and components during the relevant period. Imports of furniture cannot be considered like or directly competitive with furniture parts, such as hardwood furniture squares and stair parts, produced by C&C Smith Lumber Company, Inc., Summerhill, Pennsylvania and imports of furniture are not relevant in this investigation. Upon further review of the previous investigation and further contact with the company official, the Department requested an additional list of customers in order to conduct a fuller investigation to determine whether there were any imports of furniture parts and components during the relevant time period. The Department conducted a further survey of the additional customers regarding their purchases of furniture parts. The survey revealed that none of the respondents reported imports of furniture parts during the relevant time period. Moreover, the subject firm does not import furniture parts and components and did not shift production of furniture parts and components abroad. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed at Washington, DC, this day 19th of January, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of, Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1695 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,277] Creative Engineering Products, Formerly Known as Carlisle Engineered Products, Belleville Division, a Subsidiary of the Reserve Group, Belleville, MI; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Creative Engineering Products, formerly known as Carlisle Engineered Products, Belleville Division, a subsidiary of the Reserve Group, Belleville, Michigan. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued. TA-W-60,277; Creative Engineering Products, Formerly Known as Carlisle Engineered Products, Belleville Division, a Subsidiary of the Reserve Group. Belleville, Michigan (January 18, 2007) Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of January 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1697 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,700] Quality Staffing Services Working at Filtronic Comtek, Inc., Salisbury, MD; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 4, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a state agency represenative on behalf of workers of Quality Staffing Services, working at Filtronic Comtek, Inc., Salisbury, Maryland. The workers at the subject facility produce filters for cell tower base stations. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-60,699) filed on January 3, 2007 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose; therefore the investigation under this petition has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of January 2007. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of, Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1696 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [DOCKET NO. 030-32563] Notice Of Environmental Assessment Related To The Issuance Of A License Amendment To Byproduct Material License No. 24-26366-01, For Unrestricted Release Of A Former Facility For High Energy Devices, LlC, Maryland Heights, MO AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Snell, Senior Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532; *telephone:*

(630)829-9871; *fax number:*

(630)515-1259; or by *e-mail:* at *wgs@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering the issuance of an amendment to NRC Byproduct Materials License No. 24-26366-01, which is held by High Energy Devices, LLC (licensee). The amendment would authorize the decommissioning and unrestricted release of the licensee's former facility located at 45D Progress Parkway, Maryland Heights, Missouri (the facility). The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the Environmental Assessment, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. The amendment to High Energy Devices' license will be issued following the publication of this Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. I. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve High Energy Devices' request to amend its license and release the licensee's facility for unrestricted use in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)to amend its license by letter dated December 22, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML063630413). High Energy Devices was first licensed to use byproduct materials at its facility on December 23, 1991. The licensee is authorized to use byproduct materials for activities involving the manufacture of gas discharge tubes. Cesium-137, nickel-63 and krypton-85, each with a half-life greater than 120 days, were the only isotopes that were used at the facility in an unsealed form, and each of these were limited to less than 5 milliCuries at any one time. On December 18, 2006, High Energy Devices completed removal of all equipment and licensed radioactive material from the facility, transporting the equipment and radioactive materials to a new location of business. The licensee conducted surveys of the facility as part of its decommissioning activities and provided this information to the NRC to demonstrate that the radiological condition there is consistent with radiological criteria for unrestricted use in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. No radiological remediation activities are required to complete the proposed action. Need for the Proposed Action The licensee is requesting this license amendment because it has moved out of the facility, and is conducting licensed activities at another location. The NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision on the proposed action for decommissioning that ensures that residual radioactivity is reduced to a level that is protective of the public health and safety and the environment, and allows the facility to be released for unrestricted use. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff reviewed the information provided and surveys performed by the licensee to demonstrate that the release of the facility is consistent with the radiological criteria for unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff determined that there were no radiological impacts associated with the proposed action because no radiological remediation activities were required to complete the proposed action, and that the radiological criteria for unrestricted use in § 20.1402 have been met. Based on its review, the staff determined that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed action for the facility are bounded by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496). Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the proposed action is to take no action. Under the no-action alternative, the licensee's facility would remain under an NRC license and would not be released for unrestricted use. Denial of the license amendment request would result in no change to current conditions at the facility. The no-action alternative is not acceptable because it is inconsistent with 10 CFR 30.36, which requires that decommissioning of by-product material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. This alternative would impose an unnecessary regulatory burden in controlling access to the former facility, and limit potential benefits from the future use of the facility. Conclusion The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitats. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has potential to cause effect on historic properties. Therefore, consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is not required. The NRC consulted with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). The Missouri DHSS, Division of Community and Public Health, Office of Emergency Coordination, was provided the draft EA for comment on January 12, 2007. Mr. Keith Henke, Planner, with the Missouri DHSS, responded to the NRC by e-mail on January 17, 2007, indicating that the State had no comments regarding the NRC Environmental Assessment for the release of the High Energy Devices facility. II. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA in support of the proposed license amendment to release the facility for unrestricted use, the NRC has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Thus, the NRC has not prepared an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. III. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* The documents and ADAMS accession numbers related to this notice are: 1. Michael C. Brower, High Energy Devices, LLC, letter to Kevin Null, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 22, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML063630413). 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,” NUREG-1748, August 2003. 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” NUREG-1496, August 1994. 4. NRC, NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volumes 1-3, September 2003. Documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 23rd day of January 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III. [FR Doc. E7-1729 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS)Subcommittee Meeting on Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor Fuels; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Materials, Metallurgy, and Reactor Fuels will hold a meeting on February 21, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: *Wednesday, February 21, 2007—1 p.m. until the conclusion of business.* The Subcommittee will hear from the NRC staff about the actions resulting from the Wolf Creek Pipe Cracking event. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, their contractors, representatives of the nuclear industry, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Gary Hammer (telephone 301/415-7363) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: January 26, 2007. Eric A. Thornsbury, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E7-1723 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. IC-27689] Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 January 26, 2007. The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of January, 2007. A copy of each application may be obtained for a fee at the SEC's Public Reference Branch (tel. 202-551-5850). An order granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on February 21, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. *For Further Information Contact:* Diane L. Titus at

(202)551-6810, SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041. Boston Advisors Trust [File No. 811-9675] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On June 18, 2005, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $32,088 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on January 11, 2007. *Applicant's Address:* One Federal St., Boston, MA 02110. Credit Suisse New York Municipal Fund [File No. 811-4964] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 17, 2006, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $6,000 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC, applicant's investment adviser. Applicant has retained $9,535 in cash for the payment of remaining liquidation expenses. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on December 27, 2006. *Applicant's Address:* C/O Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC, Eleven Madison Ave., New York, NY 10010. Morgan Stanley Global Utilities Fund [File No. 811-7119] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December 8, 2006, applicant transferred its assets to Morgan Stanley Utilities Fund, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $272,500 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc., applicant's investment adviser. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on December 7, 2006, and amended on January 18, 2007. *Applicant's Address:* Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020. Morgan Stanley Balanced Income Fund [File No. 811-7243] Morgan Stanley Income Builder Fund [File No. 811-7575] *Summary:* Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On September 15, 2006, each applicant transferred its assets to Morgan Stanley Balanced Fund, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $186,000 and $181,000, respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid by Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc., applicants' investment adviser. *Filing Dates:* The applications were filed on November 20, 2006, and amended on January 18, 2007. *Applicants' Address:* Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020. UMB Scout Money Market Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3528] UMB Scout Tax-Free Money Market Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3556] UMB Scout Stock Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3557] UMB Scout Bond Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3558] UMB Scout WorldWide Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-7472] UMB Scout Kansas Tax-Exempt Bond Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-8513] *Summary:* Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Between April 1, 2005 and April 12, 2005, each applicant transferred its assets to corresponding series of UMB Scout Funds, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $15,250 incurred in connection with each reorganization were paid by Scout Investment Advisors, Inc., applicants' investment adviser. *Filing Date:* The applications were filed on December 22, 2006. *Applicants' Address:* 1010 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64106. UMB Scout Balanced Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-7323] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December 20, 2004, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $15,250 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by Scout Investment Advisors, Inc., applicant's investment adviser. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on December 22, 2006. *Applicant's Address:* 1010 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64106. The Jundt Growth Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-6317] Jundt Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-9128] American Eagle Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-9699] *Summary:* Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On November 30, 2006, each applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $61,200, $176,549 and $47,624, respectively, incurred in connection with the liquidations were paid by each applicant. *Filing Date:* The applications were filed on December 13, 2006. *Applicants' Address:* 301 Carlson Parkway, Suite 120, Minnetonka, MN 55305. Bremer Investment Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-7919] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On November 13, 2006, applicant transferred its assets to T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund, Inc. and T. Rowe Price New Income Fund, Inc., based on net asset value. Expenses of $179,475 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by Bremer Trust, National Association, applicant's investment adviser. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on December 15, 2006. *Applicant's Address:* 445 Minnesota St., Suite 2000, St. Paul, MN 55101. Putnam Managed High Yield Trust [File No. 811-7658] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 30, 2006, applicant transferred its assets to Putnam High Yield Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses of $249,360 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on November 8, 2006, and amended on December 22, 2006. *Applicant's Address:* One Post Office Sq., Boston, MA 02109. Oppenheimer Total Return Bond Fund [File No. 811-21268] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On March 24, 2006, applicant transferred its assets to Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund, a series of Oppenheimer Integrity Funds, based on net asset value. Expenses of $35,663 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on August 9, 2006, and amended on January 11, 2007 and January 23, 2007. *Applicant's Address:* 6803 S. Tucson Way, Centennial, CO 80112. Tep Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3609] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On November 28, 2006, applicant merged with Tep Acquisition, Inc., a newly formed New York corporation, with applicant being the surviving entity. As a result of the reorganization, applicant has two beneficial shareholders and will continue to operate as a private investment fund in reliance on section 3(c)(1) of the Act. Applicant is not presently making a public offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public offering. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on November 29, 2006, and amended on January 11, 2007 and January 25, 2007. *Applicant's Address:* 1675 Broadway, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10019. Credit Suisse Alternative Capital Event Driven Master Fund, LLC [811-21738] Credit Suisse Alternative Capital Relative Value Master Fund, LLC [811-21740] Credit Suisse Alternative Capital Tactical Trading Master Fund, LLC [811-21741] *Summary:* Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Each applicant serves as a master fund for two feeder funds in a master-feeder structure. Each applicant is beneficially owned by an affiliate of applicants' investment adviser, who is the sole unitholder of the respective feeder funds. Applicants are not presently making a public offering of their securities and do not propose to make a public offering. Each applicant will continue to operate as a private investment vehicle in reliance on section 3(c)(1) of the Act. *Filing Date:* The applications were filed on January 3, 2007. *Applicants' Address:* 11 Madison Ave., 13th Floor, New York, NY 10010. Credit Suisse Alternative Capital Relative Value Fund, LLC [811-21660] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has one remaining shareholder, who is an affiliate of applicant's investment adviser. Applicant is not presently making a public offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public offering. Applicant will continue to operate as a private investment fund in reliance on section 3(c)(1) of the Act. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on January 3, 2007. *Applicant's Address:* 11 Madison Ave., 13th Floor, New York, NY 10010. Credit Suisse Alternative Capital Relative Value Institutional Fund, LLC [811-21642] Credit Suisse Alternative Capital Tactical Trading Institutional Fund, LLC [811-21643] Credit Suisse Alternative Capital Event Driven Institutional Fund, LLC [811-21645] Credit Suisse Alternative Capital Event Driven Fund, LLC [811-21659] Credit Suisse Alternative Capital Tactical Trading Fund, LLC [811-21661] *Summary:* Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Each applicant conducted a tender offer, which provided that all unitholders who tendered their units would receive the applicant's per unit net asset value as of December 29, 2006. As of December 29, 2006, each applicant had one remaining unitholder, an affiliate of the applicants' investment adviser. Applicants are not presently making a public offering of their securities and do not propose to make a public offering. Each applicant will continue to operate as a private investment fund in reliance on section 3(c)(1) of the Act. *Filing Date:* The applications were filed on January 3, 2007. *Applicant's Address:* 11 Madison Ave., 13th Floor, New York, NY 10010. Travelers Series Trust [File No. 811-6465] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 26, 2006 and April 27, 2006, Applicant made distributions of its assets to its shareholders in connection with its merger with various series of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. Expenses of $1,188,978.67 were incurred in connection with the merger. These expenses were paid by each series of the trust on a pro rata basis based on total net assets, except for the U.S. Government Securities Portfolio, whose expenses were paid by the surviving portfolio, the U.S. Government Portfolio, a series of the Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on October 3, 2006, and amended on January 10, 2007. *Applicant's Address:* One Cityplace, Hartford, CT 06103. Capital Appreciation Fund [File No. 811-3429] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 26, 2006, Applicant made a distribution of its assets to its shareholders in connection with its merger with Janus Capital Appreciation Portfolio, a series of Met Investors Series Trust. Expenses of $200,146.06 were incurred in connection with the merger. These expenses were paid by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and/or its affiliates. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is an affiliate of the trust's investment adviser. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on October 3, 2006. *Applicant's Address:* One Cityplace, Hartford, CT 06103. High Yield Bond Trust [File No. 811-3428] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 26, 2006, Applicant made a distribution of its assets to its shareholders in connection with its merger with Western Asset Management High Yield Bond Portfolio, a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. Expenses of $58,910.27 were incurred in connection with the merger. These expenses were paid by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and/or its affiliates. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is an affiliate of the trust's investment adviser. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on October 3, 2006. *Applicant's Address:* One Cityplace, Hartford, CT 06103. Managed Assets Trust [File No. 811-3568] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 26, 2006, Applicant made a distribution of its assets to its shareholders in connection with its merger with Legg Mason Partners Managed Assets Portfolio, a series of Met Investors Series Trust. Expenses of $51,670.16 were incurred in connection with the merger. These expenses were paid by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and/or its affiliates. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is an affiliate of the trust's investment adviser. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on October 3, 2006. *Applicant's Address:* One Cityplace, Hartford, CT 06103. Money Market Portfolio [File No. 811-3274] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On April 26, 2006, Applicant made a distribution of its assets to its shareholders in connection with its merger with BlackRock Money Market Portfolio, a series of Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. Expenses of $74,214.31 were incurred in connection with the merger. These expenses were paid by the Money Market Portfolio. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on October 3, 2006. *Applicant's Address:* One Cityplace, Hartford, CT 06103. Financial Investors Variable Insurance Trust [File No. 811-10215] *Summary:* Financial Investors Variable Insurance Trust seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On February 22, 2006, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $12,009 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by First Tennessee Bank N.A., applicant's sponsor. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on September 22, 2006 and amended on November 30, 2006. *Applicant's Address:* Financial Investors Variable Insurance Trust, 1625 Broadway, Suite 2200, Denver, CO 80202. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1718 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of February 5, 2007: An Open Meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium, Room LL-002, and Closed Meetings will be held on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 11 a.m. and Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 2 p.m. Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meetings. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), 9(B) and

(10)and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and

(10)permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meetings. Commissioner Nazareth as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meetings in closed session. The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 10 a.m. will be: The Commission will hear oral argument on an appeal by John A. Carley, Eugene C. Geiger, Thomas A. Kaufmann, Edward H. Price, and Christopher H. Zacharias from an initial decision of an administrative law judge. Carley and Zacharias were officers and directors of Starnet Communications International, Inc. Geiger and Kaufmann were associated persons of Spencer Edwards, Inc., a registered broker-dealer. Price was president, chief executive officer, and chief compliance officer of Spencer Edwards and supervised Geiger and Kaufmann. The law judge found that Carley and Zacharias violated, and Geiger and Kaufmann willfully violated, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 by offering to sell, selling, and delivering to members of the public shares of Starnet common stock when no registration statement was filed or in effect with respect to those securities and no exemption from registration was available. The law judge found that Price failed reasonably to supervise Geiger and Kaufmann. The law judge found further that Carley and Zacharias violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws by filing with the Commission false and misleading current and annual reports. The law judge also found that Zacharias violated Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 16a-3 by failing to file a required Form 4. The law judge imposed cease-and-desist orders on Carley, Zacharias, Geiger, and Kaufmann, barred Geiger and Kaufmann from associating with any broker or dealer, and barred Price from associating with any broker or dealer in a supervisory capacity. The law judge ordered Carley and Zacharias each to disgorge an amount representing payments made to them in connection with their unregistered sale of shares of Starnet common stock. The law judge also ordered Geiger and Kaufmann each to disgorge fifty percent of the net commissions that they earned on all Starnet trades attributable to their joint account number at Spencer Edwards from January 1999 through February 2001. The law judge imposed penalties of $400,000 against Geiger, $300,000 against Kaufmann, and $150,000 against Price. Carley, Zacharias, Geiger, Kaufmann, and Price appeal the law judge's findings of violation and the sanctions imposed by the law judge. Among the issues likely to be considered are:

(1)Whether respondents committed the alleged violations; and

(2)If so, whether sanctions should be imposed in the public interest. The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 11 a.m. will be: post-argument discussion. The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 8, 2007 will be: regulatory matter regarding financial institution; formal orders of investigation; institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; resolution of litigation claims; an adjudicatory matter; and other matters relating to enforcement proceedings. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at

(202)551-5400. Dated: January 31, 2007. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-474 Filed 1-31-07; 11:02 am]

Connectionstraces to 4

Traces to 4 documents

CFR

U.S. Code