Proposed Rules. Notice of issuance of policy statement

4,835 words·~22 min read·/register/2006/03/21/06-2768

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Policy Statement Number PS-ACE100-2005-10039] Standardization and Clarification of Application of 14 CFR Part 23, §§ 23.1301 and 23.1309, Regarding Environmental Qualification AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of issuance of policy statement. SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance of a Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)policy. The policy standardizes and clarifies the FAA application of 14 CFR part 23, sections 23.1301 and 23.1309, Amendment 23-41 or later for environmental qualification. This notice is necessary to advise the public, especially manufacturers of normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes, and commuter category airplanes and their suppliers, that the FAA has adopted the policy. DATES: Policy statement PS-ACE100-2005-10039 was issued by the Manager of the Small Airplane Directorate on February 16, 2006. *How to Obtain Copies:* A paper copy of the policy statement may be obtained by writing to the following: Small Airplane Directorate, Standards Office (ACE-110), Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106. The policy statement will also be available on the Internet at the following address *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ervin Dvorak, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Regulations & Policy, ACE-111, 901 Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(316)329-4123; fax: 816-329-4090; e-mail: *erv.dvorak@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background We announced the availability of the policy statement on December 8, 2005 (70 FR 73059). We revised the policy in response to the comments, and the policy has been adopted. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on March 10, 2006. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4022 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No. 2006 24165] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel PROTECTOR. SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2006-24165 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Public Law 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before April 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD 2006 24165. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PROTECTOR is: *Intended Use:* “Sightseeing along the east coast of Hawaii Islands for not more than twelve passengers.” *Geographic Region:* Pacific Ocean, east coast of Hawaii Island between Upolu Point and Ka Lae Point, not more than five miles offshore. Dated: March 10, 2006. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-4020 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA 2006-23684; Notice 2] Continental Tire North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Continental Tire North America, Inc. (Continental Tire) has determined that certain tires it produced in 2004 and 2005 do not comply with the labeling requirements specified in S5.5(d) of 49 CFR 571.139, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, “New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles.” Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Continental Tire has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.” Notice of receipt of a petition was published, with a 30-day comment period, on January 31, 2006, in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 5116). NHTSA received no comments. Affected are a total of approximately 2,500 model 235/85R16 C Grabber TR tires manufactured in 2004 and 2005. S5.5(d) of FMVSS No. 139 requires that each tire must be marked on each sidewall with the maximum load rating. The noncompliant tires are marked on the sidewall “max load single 1380 kg (3042 lbs)” whereas the correct marking should be “max load single 1400 kg (3085 lbs).” Continental Tire has corrected the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production. Continental Tire believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Continental Tire states, All other sidewall identification markings and safety information is correct. A consumer acting on the incorrect information would underload the vehicle by 20 kg per tire. This incorrect load capacity molding does not affect the safety, performance and durability of the tire; the tire was built as designed. The agency agrees with Continental Tire's statement that the mismarking does not present a serious safety concern. The agency believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety in this case is that there is no effect of the noncompliance on the operational safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. In the agency's judgment, the incorrect labeling will have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because, as Continental Tire states, a consumer acting on the incorrect information would underload the vehicle by 20 kg per tire which does not present a safety issue. In addition, the tires are certified to meet all the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 139, which is a compliance option for these tires. All other informational markings as required by FMVSS No. 139 are present. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Continental Tire's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliance. Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8). Issued on: March 14, 2006. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-4019 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA 2006-23553; Notice 2] Pacific Coast Retreaders, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Pacific Coast Retreaders, Inc. (Pacific Coast) has determined that certain tires that it imported do not comply with S6.5(b) of 49 CFR 571.119, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, “New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.” Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Pacific Coast has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.” Notice of receipt of a petition was published, with a 30-day comment period, on January 19, 2006, in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 3152). NHTSA received no comments. Affected are a total of approximately 780 tires produced in March 2005 by Linglong Rubber Company in China and imported by Pacific Coast in April 2005. One requirement of S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119, tire markings, is that the tire identification shall comply with 49 CFR part 574, “Tire Identification and Recordkeeping,” which includes the marking requirements of 574.5(b) DOT size code. The subject tires are missing the required tire size code. Pacific Coast has corrected the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production. Pacific Coast believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Pacific Coast explains that, as a result of mold cleaning and repair, some of the tire size code symbols were not restamped after repair, and worn symbols were not re-traced. Pacific Coast states that “the tire size is embossed in very larger

(sic)raised characters on both sidewalls and [is] easily identifiable from a great distance.” The petitioner states that as a result, there is no confusion as to the tire size. NHTSA agrees with Pacific Coast that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. As Pacific Coast points out, the tires do have markings which provide the correct size. Therefore, there should be no confusion by the user of this information. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Pacific Coast's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliance. Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8). Issued on: March 14, 2006. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-4018 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Cross-Border Electronic Transmittals of Funds Survey AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network requests comments on a survey that seeks input from trade groups representing members of the U.S. financial services industry on the feasibility of requiring reporting of cross-border electronic transmittals of funds, and the impact such reporting would have on the industry. The survey is part of a study of these issues required by section 6302 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This request for comments is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 105-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, Virginia 22183, Attention: PRA Comments—Cross-Border Survey. Comments also may be submitted by electronic mail to the following Internet address: *regcomments@fincen.gov* , with a caption in the body of the text, “Attention: PRA Comments—Cross-Border Survey.” Inspection of comments. Comments may be inspected, between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., in the FinCEN reading room in Washington, DC. Persons wishing to inspect the comments submitted must request an appointment by telephoning

(202)354-6400. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or requests for copies of the questions for the new cross-border survey that is the subject of this notice should be directed to: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Regulatory Policy and Programs Division at

(800)949-2732. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2004, President Bush signed into law S. 2845, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Act). 1 Among other things, the Act requires that the Secretary of the Treasury study the feasibility of “requiring such financial institutions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network certain cross-border electronic transmittals of funds, if the Secretary determines that reporting of such transmittals is reasonably necessary to conduct the efforts of the Secretary against money laundering and terrorist financing.” The report must identify what cross-border information would be reasonably necessary to combat money laundering and terrorist financing; outline the criteria to be used in determining what situations will require reporting; outline the form, manner, and frequency of reporting; and identify the technology necessary for Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to keep, analyze, protect, and disseminate the data collected. This survey seeks input from trade groups representing members of the U.S. financial services industry on the feasibility of requiring reporting of cross-border electronic transmittals of funds, and the impact such reporting would have on the industry. 1 Pub. L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (2004). Title 31 CFR 103.33 (e)-(g) provides uniform recordkeeping and transmittal requirements for financial institutions and are intended to help law enforcement and regulatory authorities detect, investigate and prosecute money laundering and other financial crimes by preserving an information trail about persons sending and receiving funds through the funds transfer system. Although the requirements for banks and non-bank financial institutions are similar, their respective rules contain different terminology. For the purposes of this document, when terminology for banks is used, the intent is for it to apply to the broader universe of financial institutions. Under current regulations, for each payment order that it receives, a financial institution must obtain and retain the following information on funds transfers of $3,000 or more:

(a)Name and address of the originator;

(b)the amount of the funds transfer;

(c)the date of the request;

(d)any payment instructions received from the originator with the payment order;

(e)the identity of the beneficiary's bank;

(f)and as much information pertaining to the beneficiary as is received, such as name and address, account number, and any other identifying information. Intermediary and beneficiary banks receiving a payment order are required to keep an original or a copy of the payment order. An originator bank is required to verify the identity of the person placing a payment order if it is made in person and if the person is not already a customer. Similarly, if a beneficiary bank delivers the proceeds to the beneficiary in person, the beneficiary bank is required to verify the identity of that person if not already a customer. The feasibility study will examine the advisability of imposing the requirement that financial institutions report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network certain of the transactions of which it must currently maintain records under those regulations. The intent of this survey is to gather information from the banking and financial services industries to assist in determining the feasibility and impact of such a reporting requirement. If feasible, the Act requires the Secretary to promulgate rules imposing a reporting requirement by December 2007. An inadequate understanding of the impact could result in ineffective regulations that impose unreasonable regulatory burdens with little or no corresponding anti-money laundering benefits. We would appreciate receiving comments on this survey on or before April 15, 2006. You may submit comments or questions about this survey by e-mail to *eric.kringel@fincen.gov* or by U.S. Mail to: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Post Office. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183, Attn: Eric Kringel, Senior Policy Advisor. Thank you for your assistance. Solely for purposes of clarity and in aiding respondents in your comments to the questions below, we propose the following definition: *Cross-Border Electronic Transmittal of Funds.* Cross-border electronic transmittal of funds means any wire transfer in which either the originator or the beneficiary of the transfer is located in the United States and the other is located outside the United States. This term also refers to any chain of wire transfer instructions that has at least one cross-border element, and encompasses any such transfer in which an institution is involved as originator's institution, beneficiary's institution, intermediary, or correspondent, whether that institution's involvement involves direct transmission to or from a foreign institution. The definition does not include any debit transmittals, point-of-sale

(POS)systems, transaction conducted through an Automated Clearing House

(ACH)process, or Automated Teller Machine (ATM). To the extent your member financial institutions can provide the following information, we would like responses to the questions outlined below. We are seeking general or aggregated information (i.e., “45% of our membership * * *.”) rather than specific responses about particular institutions. Background Information 1. Please characterize the institutions your organization represents (i.e., banks, broker-dealers, currency dealers or exchangers, casinos, money services businesses, etc.). 2. How would you further describe the institutions your organization represents by the primary nature of your business (i.e., community banks, credit unions, money center banks, money transmitters, specialized business lanes, etc.). 3. What is the approximate volume of the overall funds transfer business (by total number and aggregate dollar amount) your member institutions conduct over a one-year period? 4. What is the approximate volume cross-border electronic transmittals of funds (by total number and aggregate dollar amount) your member institutions send and receive over a one-year period? To the extent possible, please estimate the percentage of cross-border electronic transmittal of funds sent or received by your member financial institutions, in the following categories (if applicable): a. On behalf of their own customers, b. As an intermediary or correspondent for other institutions c. As internal settlement with their own institution's foreign affiliates or branches. d. As the U.S. financial institution that directly transmitted the payment order to or accepted the payment order from a financial institution located outside of the United States. 5. Do your member institutions send or receive cross-border electronic transmittal of funds in-house or through a correspondent? a. What systems (e.g., SWIFT, Fedwire, CHIPS, proprietary system) are used to send or receive cross-border funds transfers? b. What is the proportional usage of each system if more than one system is used? c. Are there instances when the system used is dictated by the nature of the transaction or customer instruction? If possible, please exclude those situations where the decision is due to the fact that the receiving financial institution does not use a particular system. Existing Record Maintenance and Compliance Process 6. How do your member institutions maintain the funds transfer records required by 31 CFR 103.33 (i.e., message system logs or backups, wire transfer instruction database, account history files, etc.)? a. If the data is stored electronically, can the storage systems export such data into a spreadsheet or database file for reporting? 7. Approximately how many times in a one-year period does the government subpoena or otherwise issue a legal demand requiring your member institutions to produce cross-border wire transfer information? Note: We understand that many requests seek “any and all records” pertaining to an account or subject. Where possible, please distinguish those requests from more specific requests for cross-border electronic transmittals of funds. 8. Can you estimate the approximate total cost ( *e.g.* , person-hours or other costs) to your member institutions in time and expense responding to these legal demands? If you cannot estimate the costs incurred, please describe generally the resources involved in complying with such requests. Foreign Transactions 9. Do your member institutions or any of their branches, subsidiaries, or affiliates transmit or receive cross-border electronic transmittals of funds from a location in either Australia or Canada? a. If yes, please briefly describe the measures taken, including the general estimates of the costs in time and expense incurred, to ensure compliance with the cross-border funds transfer reporting requirements in those jurisdictions and the measures in place to monitor and maintain compliance. 10. If the Department of the Treasury required reports of cross-border electronic transmittals of funds involving amounts over $3,000, what general steps would your member institutions need to take (and how burdensome would it be) to comply? a. Would the answer differ if the value threshold were $10,000? b. Would the answer differ if there were no value threshold? c. How would these different thresholds affect the volume of the reporting from your member institutions? d. How would the answer differ with the type of required reporting ( *e.g.* , electronic file upload, Web-based form)? e. How would the answer differ with the timing of required reporting ( *e.g.* , real-time, end-of-day, within 30 days)? f. To the extent possible, please estimate any cost increase for cross-border electronic transmittals of funds s that may result. g. To the extent possible, please describe any effects that reporting requirements may have on the volume or value of cross-border electronic transmittals of funds. Potential Impact on Financial Institutions 11. If the Department of Treasury required reports of cross-border electronic transmittals of funds in a SWIFT, CHIPS or other file format specified by the Department, what steps would your member institutions need to take to extract such data from existing records to submit the information as required? 12. If the Department of Treasury required reports of cross-border electronic transmittals of funds but also provided exceptions for certain customers or types of transactions ( *i.e.* , internal settlement, identical originator and beneficiary, transfers to government entities, etc.), what exemptions would you suggest? a. How difficult would it be for your member institutions to build such exceptions into the business process for creating the report? b. Would the costs to implement the exceptions outweigh the benefits? 13. If the Department of the Treasury required reports of cross-border electronic transmittals of funds, should the requirement be limited to certain institutions (e.g., only the originating institution, only the beneficiary's institution, only the U.S. financial institution that directly transmits the payment order to or accepts the payment order from a financial institution located outside of the United States)? Please explain the rationale for your response. 14. Can your member financial institutions' automated systems distinguish between domestic funds transfer and a cross-border electronic transmittal of funds? 15. Among the following definitions of “cross-border electronic transmittal of funds” what potential advantages and disadvantages do you perceive? Do you have any suggestions for such a definition or can you highlight any particular issues that should be addressed in such a definition? ( **Note:** All of the following definitions would exclude check, debit transmittal, ATM, or ACH payments.) a. Cross-border electronic transfer of funds means any wire transfer where the originator's and beneficiary's institutions are located in different countries and one of the institutions is located in the United States. This term also refers to any chain of wire transfers that has at least one cross-border element b. Cross-border electronic transfers of funds include transactions where either

(1)a foreign office of a financial institution instructs a U.S. office of a financial institution to effect payment in the U.S., directly or indirectly, or

(2)where U.S. office of a financial institution instructs a foreign office of a financial institution to effect a payment abroad, directly or indirectly. c. Cross-border electronic transmittal of funds means the transmission—through any electronic, magnetic or optical device, telephone instrument or computer—of instructions for the transfer of funds, other than the transfer of funds within the United States. In the case of SWIFT messages, only SWIFT MT 100 and SWIFT MT 103 messages are included d. Cross-border electronic transmittal of funds means an instruction for a transfer of funds that is transmitted into or out of the United States electronically or by telegraph, where the financial institution is acting on behalf of, or at the request of, another person who is not a financial institution *Title:* Cross-Border Electronic Transmittals of Funds Survey. *OMB Number:* 1506-0048. *Abstract:* Survey to be conducted with business owners and managers in the Cross-Border Electronic Transmittals of Funds industry. Survey asks respondents to report on cross-border financial services provided by their businesses. *Type of Review:* New information collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for profit institutions. *Frequency:* One time. *Estimated Burden:* Reporting average of 60 minutes per response. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 23,262. *Estimated Total Responses:* 23,262. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 23,262. Request for Comments Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected:

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance and purchase of services to provide information. Dated: March 14, 2006. Robert Werner, Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. [FR Doc. E6-4073 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Request for Comments on Treasury's Report to Congress on International and Exchange Rate Policies AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for International Affairs, Treasury. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for International Affairs of the U.S. Department of the Treasury invites all interested parties to comment on the methodology used in preparing its semi-annual report to Congress on International and Exchange Rate Policies and to submit views on the contents of its next report. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, facsimile or email. All comments should contain the following information in the heading: “Attn: Request for Public Comments on the Report to Congress on International and Exchange Rate Policies.” *Mailing address:* Office of the Under Secretary for International Affairs, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. *Facsimile:*

(202)622-2009 (not a toll-free number). *Email: ashby.mccown@do.treas.gov.* For further information concerning the submission of comments, refer to the heading “Request for Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Weeks, Director, Global Economics Unit, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220,

(202)622-9885 (not a toll-free number), *john.weeks@do.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 3004 of Public Law 100-418 (22 U.S.C. 5304) requires, inter alia, that the Secretary of the Treasury analyze on an annual basis the exchange rate policies of foreign countries, in consultation with the International Monetary Fund, and consider whether countries manipulate the rate of exchange between their currency and the United States dollar for purposes of preventing effective balance of payments adjustment or gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade. Section 3004 further requires that: “If the Secretary considers that such manipulation is occurring with respect to countries that

(1)have material global current account surpluses; and

(2)have significant bilateral trade surpluses with the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury shall take action to initiate negotiations with such foreign countries on an expedited basis, in the International Monetary Fund or bilaterally, for the purpose of ensuring that such countries regularly and promptly adjust the rate of exchange between their currencies and the United States dollar to permit effective balance of payment adjustments and to eliminate the unfair advantage.” Section 3005 (22 U.S.C. 5305) requires, inter alia, the Secretary of the Treasury to provide each six months a report on international economic policy, including exchange rate policy. Among other matters, the reports are to contain the results of negotiations conducted pursuant to Section 3004. Each of these reports bears the title, Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies, (the “Report”). Treasury is soliciting comments on the methods used by Treasury to analyze the economies and exchange rate policies of foreign countries in order to help improve the process of carrying out its responsibilities under Sections 3004 and 3005. The most recent Report can be found on the Web site of the Office of the Under Secretary for International Affairs, at *http://www.treas.gov/offices/international-affairs/economic-exchange-rates/.* Treasury is also soliciting views on approaches that might be fruitful in the upcoming spring 2006 Report. Request for Comments Comments must be submitted in writing by one of the methods specified in the ADDRESSES portion of this notice. All comments should contain the following information in the heading: “Attn: Request for Comments on the Report to Congress on International and Exchange Rate Policies.” Comments must be received by April 7, 2006. Treasury requests that comments be no more than two pages in length. The Office of the Under Secretary for International Affairs will not accept comments accompanied by a request that all or part of the submission be treated as confidential because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. All comments received by April 7, 2006 will be a matter of public record. Clay Lowery, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. [FR Doc. 06-2768 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 4

Traces to 4 documents

U.S. Code

13 references not yet in our index