Exhibit
      34 a)





[PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
      LOGO]


PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP


10
      Tenth
      Street, Northwest


Suite
      1400


Atlanta,
      G4 30303-3351


Telephone
      (678)419 1000


Facsimile
      (678) 419 1239





Report
      of
      Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To
      the
      Shareholders and the


Board
      of
      Directors of Assurant, Inc.




We
        have
        examined American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance
        Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly, “Safeco Financial
        Institution Solutions, Inc.”)’s (affiliates of Assurant Inc., collectively, the
“Asserting Party”) compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item
        1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for all the
        mortgage loan-tracking transactions for such asset-backed securities
        transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform”)
        described in the accompanying “Restated Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) of Regulation AB Servicing
        Criteria”, as of December 31, 2006 and for the year then ended (the “Reporting
        Period”), excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(v),
        1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x) and
        1122(d)(4)(xiii)-(xv), which the Asserting Party has determined are not
        applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the
        Platform. Management is responsible for compliance with the servicing criteria.
        Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Management’s compliance with
        the servicing criteria based on our examination.




Our
        examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
        Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
        on a test basis, evidence about the Asserting Party’s compliance with the
        applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we
        considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
        of
        selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
        testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform,
        and determining whether the Asserting Party processed those selected
        transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the
        applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected
        transactions and servicing activities performed by the Asserting Party during
        the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect
        noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent
        to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
        reported by the Asserting Party during the period covered by this report.
        We
        believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
        Our
        examination does not provide a legal determination on the Asserting Party’s
        compliance with the servicing criteria.




The
        Asserting Party previously excluded the applicable servicing criteria set
        forth
        in 1122(d)(4)(xii) from the scope of its assessment
        of compliance. The Asserting Party has now assessed its compliance with the
        servicing criterion 1122(d)(4)(xii) for the Reporting Period and has identified
        material noncompliance with that servicing criterion. Our examination also
        disclosed material noncompliance with the servicing criterion. Specifically,
        the
        Asserting Party did not have, during the reporting period, sufficient policies
        and procedures to capture the information with respect to the Platform necessary
        to determine whether any late payment penalties in connection with any payment
        to be made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer’s funds and are
        not charged to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor’s
        error or omission. The Asserting Party has restated its previous assessment
        for
        the Reporting Period, which excluded evaluation of the criterion, to include
        the
        criterion and reflect the material noncompliance as a result of its assessment.
        Accordingly, our present opinion on the Asserting Party’s compliance with the
        applicable servicing criteria, as presented herein, is different from that
        expressed in our previous report.




In
        our
        opinion, except for the material noncompliance described in the preceding
        paragraph, the Asserting Party complied with the aforementioned applicable
        servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the
        Platform, in all material respects.




/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




February
        23, 2007, except for the Asserting Party`s restatement described above regarding
        the assessment of the servicing criteria set forth in 1122(d)(4)(xii) which
        was
        previously excluded from the scope of its assessment of compliance with
        applicable servicing criteria, as to which the date is January 30,
        2008