UNITED STATES
                             SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                   WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



                                          FORM 10-K/A
                                        Amendment No. 1

The Issuing Entity is filing this Form 10-K/A to replace Exhibits 31, 33(a)
and 34(a) to the original Form 10-K filed on April 2, 2007. American Security
Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance
Agency, Inc. (formerly, "Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.")
("Assurant Inc.") recently provided the Issuing Entity with a revised report on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities
and a related attestation. In the original assessment previously provided to
the Issuing Entity, Assurant Inc. excluded Item 1122(d)(4)(xii) from the scope
of its assessment. Assurant Inc. recently provided the Issuing Entity with a
revised assessment of compliance that assesses Assurant Inc.'s compliance with
Item 1122(d)(4)(xii) and identifies material instance of non compliance with
this criterion. This material instance of non compliance is noted in this Form
10-K/A under "Additional Disclosure Items Pursuant to General Instruction J."
The Issuing Entity has included this revised assessment of compliance under
Exhibit 33(a), the related attestation under Exhibit 34(a) and a revised Rule
13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification under Exhibit 31. This Form 10-K/A does not
otherwise amend the original Form 10-K filed with the Commission on
April 2, 2007.


  (Mark one)

  /X/ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
      EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
      For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006

      OR



  / / TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
      EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


       Commission file number:  333-123741-15

       ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-SL1
       (exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)

       ACE Securities Corp.
       (exact name of the depositor as registrant on behalf of the issuing
       entity as specified in its charter)

       DB Structured Products, Inc.
       (exact name of the sponsor as specified in its charter)


  Delaware                                          06-1442101
  (State or other jurisdiction of                   Depositor
  incorporation or organization)                    (I.R.S. Employer
                                                    Identification No.)


   ACE Securities Corp.
   6525 Morrison Boulevard Suite 318
   Charlotte, NC                                 28211
  (Address of principal executive offices)    (Zip Code)


  Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (704) 365-0569


  Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

        NONE.


  Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

        NONE.


  Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer,
  as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

        Yes  ___     No  X


  Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports
  pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

        Yes  ___     No  X


  Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
  required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
  Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
  that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
  subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

        Yes  X       No  ___


  Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to
  Item 405 of Regulation S-K ( 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained
  herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge,
  in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference
  in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.

        Not applicable.


  Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer,
  an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of
  "accelerated filer and large accelerated filer" in Rule 12b-2 of the
  Exchange Act. (Check one):


  Large accelerated filer ___  Accelerated filer ___  Non-accelerated filer X


  Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as
  defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

        Yes  ___     No  X


  State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common
  equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which
  the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of
  such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant's most
  recently completed second fiscal quarter.

        Not applicable.


     Documents Incorporated by Reference

  List hereunder the following documents if incorporated by reference and
  the Part of the Form 10-K (e.g., Part I, Part II, etc.) into which the
  document is incorporated: (1)Any annual report to security holders; (2)
  Any proxy or information statement; and (3)Any prospectus filed pursuant
  to Rule 424(b) or (c) under the Securities Act of 1933. The listed
  documents should be clearly described for identification purposes (e.g.,
  annual report to security holders for fiscal year ended December 24, 1980).

        Not applicable.


                                   PART I
  Item 1.  Business.

            Omitted.


  Item 1A.  Risk Factors.

            Omitted.


  Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments.

            None.


  Item 2.  Properties.

            Omitted.


  Item 3.  Legal Proceedings.

            Omitted.


  Item 4.  Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

            Omitted.


                                PART II
Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder
         Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

            Omitted.


  Item 6.  Selected Financial Data.

            Omitted.


  Item 7.  Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
           Results of Operations.

            Omitted.


  Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

            Omitted.


  Item 8.  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

            Omitted.


  Item 9.  Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
           Financial Disclosure.

            Omitted.


  Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

            Omitted.


  Item 9A(T). Controls and Procedures.

            Omitted.


  Item 9B. Other Information.

            None.


                                PART III

  Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

            Omitted.


  Item 11. Executive Compensation.

            Omitted.

  Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
           Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

            Omitted.


  Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
           Independence.

            Omitted.


  Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.

            Omitted.



            ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS PURSUANT TO GENERAL INSTRUCTION J

  Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, Significant Obligor Financial Information.

            None.


  Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, Credit Enhancement and Other Support,
             except for certain Derivative Instruments (Information regarding
             Significant Enhancement Providers Financial Information).

            No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external
            credit enhancement, uses any derivative instruments or other support
            for the certificates within this transaction as described under
            Item 1114(a) of Regulation AB.

  Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, Certain Derivative Instruments.

            The significance percentage related to each entity or group of
            affiliated entities providing derivative instruments described in
            Item 1115 of Regulation AB is less than 10%.

  Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

            New Century Financial Corporation

            DOL Investigation. On August 2, 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor,
            Wage and Hour Division, or DOL, informed New Century  Mortgage
            Corporation ("New Century Mortgage"), an indirect wholly owned
            subsidiary of New Century Financial Corporation (the "Company"),
            that it is conducting an investigation to determine whether New
            Century Mortgage is in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act,
            or FLSA. The DOL narrowed the scope of its investigation to
            overtime compensation paid to retail loan officers in an Irvine,
            California operation. New Century Mortgage believes it is in
            compliance with the FLSA and that it properly pays overtime wages.
            In April 2005, New Century Mortgage provided requested documents
            and awaits a response from the DOL.

            Rubio. In March 2005, Daniel J. Rubio, a former retail loan officer
            of New Century Mortgage, filed a class action complaint against
            New Century Mortgage in the Superior Court of Orange County,
            California. The complaint alleges failure to pay overtime wages,
            failure to provide meal and rest periods, and that New Century
            Mortgage engaged in unfair business practices in violation of the
            California Labor Code. The complaint seeks recovery of unpaid wages,
            interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. New Century Mortgage filed
            a motion to strike and demurrer to the complaint in May 2005. On
            July 8, 2005, the court overruled the demurrer and granted the
            motion to strike. A First Amended Complaint was filed in July 2005
            and New Century Mortgage filed its answer in August 2005. In
            December 2005, New Century Mortgage filed a motion to strike
            portions of the complaint, which was granted in New Century
            Mortgage's favor, limiting the statute of limitations for
            plaintiff's meal and rest period claims to one year. The court
            reconsidered and reversed its ruling in May 2006. A Second Amended
            Complaint was filed by plaintiff, adding a cause of action for
            failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA. In July 2006,
            mediation occurred, followed by New Century Mortgage's removal of
            the case to the United States District Court, Central District of
            California in August 2006. In September 2006, the court granted
            New Century Mortgage's motion to strike, limiting the statute of
            limitations for plaintiff's meal and rest period claims to one
            year. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint was filed in October 2006.
            In December 2006, the Court granted New Century Mortgage's motion
            to strike the punitive damages allegations from the plaintiff's
            Third Amended Complaint and denied New Century Mortgage's motion
            to dismiss the sixth cause of action for alleged wage statement
            violations.  In December 2006, the parties stipulated to plaintiff
            filing a Fourth Amended Complaint adding plaintiffs John Hicks
            and David Vizcarra.

            Bonner. In April 2005, Perrie Bonner and Darrell Bruce filed a
            class action lawsuit against New Century Mortgage and Home123
            Corporation, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
            ("Home123") in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
            Indiana, Hammond Division, alleging violations of the Fair Credit
            Reporting Act, or FCRA, claiming that New Century Mortgage and
            Home123 accessed consumer credit reports without authorization
            because the prescreened offers of credit did not qualify as firm
            offers of credit. New Century Mortgage and Home 123 filed their
            answer to the complaint on June 30, 2005. In September 2005,
            plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on November
            1, 2005, New Century Mortgage and Home123 filed a motion for
            judgment on the pleadings. The court never ruled on the motion for
            judgment on the pleadings. In August 2006, the court granted
            plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class size is
            limited to the Northern District of Indiana. On December 13, 2006,
            the court heard oral argument in Indiana on the parties' summary
            judgment motions. On March 9, 2007, the court ruled on the motion
            for summary judgment that defendants' solicitation did not
            constitute a "firm offer of credit", and ruled that plaintiff
            Bonner's claim that the disclosure was not "clear and conspicuous"
            was moot. On March 12, 2007, this action settled on a class-wide
            basis (Northern District of Indiana). On March 16, 2007, the
            parties moved for preliminary approval of the settlement. The court
            has not yet ruled on the motion.

            Phillips. In July 2005, Pamela Phillips filed a class action
            lawsuit against the Company, New Century Mortgage and Home123 in
            the District Court, Central District of California.  Plaintiff
            alleges violations of FCRA, claiming that the Company, New Century
            Mortgage and Home123 accessed consumer credit reports without
            authorization because the prescreened offers of credit did not
            qualify as firm offers of credit. The case also alleges that
            certain disclosures were not made in a clear and conspicuous manner.
            The complaint seeks damages of not more than $1,000 for each
            alleged violation, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, attorneys'
            fees and costs. The Company, New Century Mortgage and Home123 filed
            a motion to dismiss certain claims in October 2005. In November
            2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss, in part. In early
            March 2006, the court, on its own motion, reversed its prior ruling
            on the motion to dismiss citing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
            recent decision in the Murray v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation case. On
            November 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification
            proposing that the class be limited to all individuals throughout
            Harris County, Texas whose consumer reports were obtained or used
            by New Century Mortgage or Home123 in connection with a credit
            transaction not initiated by them and who received the same written
            solicitation to entered into a credit transaction received by
            plaintiff. In late December 2006, plaintiff filed a Third Amended
            Complaint to limit the class size to Harris County, Texas. On
            January 22, 2007, the Company, New Century Mortgage and Home123
            filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
            Certification. On January 31, 2007, the Company, New Century
            Mortgage and Home123 filed a Motion to Stay. On February 22, 2007,
            the court denied the Motion to Stay. On March 11, 2007, this action
            settled. The parties agreed to dismissal with prejudice of
            individual claims and dismissal without prejudice of claims of
            putative class members.

            Jeppesen. In October 2005, Patricia and Stephen Jeppesen filed a
            class action lawsuit against New Century Mortgage in the U.S.
            District Court, Northern District of Indiana. Plaintiffs allege
            that New Century Mortgage violated the Indiana High Cost Loan Act
            by allegedly making loans with fees greater than permitted by law
            unless certain disclosures are made. The class is defined as all
            persons who obtained a mortgage loan from New Century Mortgage
            after January 1, 2005 on their principal residence in Indiana. A
            second claim in the complaint alleges that New Century Mortgage
            improperly charged a document preparation fee. On January 12, 2007,
            the Office of the Attorney General, State of Indiana, issued a
            no-action letter and, in response to a letter dated September 19,
            2005 from plaintiff's counsel about alleged violations of the
            Indiana Home Loan Practices Statute, concluded its inquiry and
            declined to take any action against New Century Mortgage. In
            February 2007, the parties reached a settlement on an individual
            basis. On February 14, 2007, the court entered an order dismissing
            this case and approving the Stipulation of Dismissal.

           Forrest. In January 2006, Mary Forrest filed a class action lawsuit
           against New Century Mortgage in the U.S. District Court for the
           Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division. Plaintiff alleges
           violations of FCRA, claiming that New Century Mortgage accessed
           prescreened credit reports without authorization because the offers
           of credit allegedly did not qualify as firm offers of credit. The
           proposed class consists of persons with Wisconsin addresses to whom
           New Century Mortgage sent a particular prescreened offer of credit
           after November 20, 2004. In February 2006, New Century Mortgage
           filed both its answer and a motion to transfer the case to the
           U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In June
           2006, the court granted New Century Mortgage's motion to transfer
           and ordered the case transferred from the U.S. District Court in
           Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.
           In July 2006, New Century Mortgage filed a Notice of Related Case to
           consolidate this matter with the Phillips class action. On March 11,
           2007, this action settled. On March 20, 2007, a stipulation for
           dismissal of individual claims dismissed with prejudice and claims
           of putative class members dismissed without prejudice was filed with
           the court.

           Securities Class Action Litigation

           On February 8, 2007, Avi Gold filed a securities class action
           complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
           District of California against the Company and certain of its
           directors and officers (the "Original Complaint"). The Original
           Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws
           by issuing false and misleading statements and failing to disclose
           material facts about the Company, which resulted in artificially
           inflated market prices of the Company's common stock. The purported
           class period is between April 7, 2006 and February 7, 2007. The
           Original Complaint seeks money damages in favor of its purported
           class of purchasers of the Company's securities, the costs and
           expenses of the action and other relief that may be granted by the
           court.

           The Company has also learned that seventeen additional purported
           class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
           Central District of California between February 8, 2007 and March 16,
           2007. These complaints, some of which the Company has not yet been
           served with and which name the Company and certain of its officers
           and directors as defendants, present in large degree the same legal
           and factual issues as the Original Complaint and allege various
           class periods, the longest of which is from April 7, 2006 to March 2,
           2007. One of these class actions has been brought on behalf of the
           holders of the Company's 9.125% Series A Cumulative Redeemable
           Preferred Stock ("Series A Preferred Stock") and the holders of the
           Company's  9.75% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
           ("Series B Preferred Stock"). Another of these class actions has
           been brought on behalf of the holders of the Company's Series B
           Preferred Stock. The Company anticipates that similar actions on
           behalf of holders of the Company's common stock, Series A Preferred
           Stock and Series B Preferred Stock may be filed in the future and
           does not undertake any obligation to update this disclosure for any
           similar or related claims that may be made in this regard. The
           Company intends to review the allegations in these complaints and
           respond appropriately. The Company's management intends to
           vigorously defend these claims; however, an unfavorable outcome in
           these cases or future securities class action cases could have a
           material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition.

           Shareholder Derivative Complaint
           The Company was served with a shareholder derivative complaint on
           March 1, 2007, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
           Orange. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
           control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust
           enrichment, and violations of California Corporations Code 25402 and
           seeks damages for breach, disgorgement, equitable relief, costs and
           fees. The case is in the very preliminary stages. The Company has
           also learned that five additional shareholder derivative actions
           were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange
           between February 8, 2007 and March 16, 2007 and two additional
           shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States
           District Court for the Central District of California during this
           same time period. These complaints, some of which the Company has
           not yet been served with and which name the Company and certain of
           its officers and directors as defendants, present in large degree
           the same legal and factual issues as the original shareholder
           derivative complaint. The Company anticipates that similar actions
           may be filed in the future and does not undertake any obligation to
           update this disclosure for any similar or related claims that may be
           made in this regard. The Company intends to review the allegations
           in these complaints and respond appropriately.

           U.S. Attorney's Office Investigation

           On February 27, 2007, the Company received a letter from the United
           States  Attorney's Office for the Central District of California
           (the 'U.S. Attorney's Office") indicating that it was conducting a
           criminal inquiry under the federal securities laws in connection with
           trading in the Company's securities, as well as accounting errors
           regarding the Company's allowance for repurchase losses. The Company
           has subsequently received a grand jury subpoena requesting
           production of certain documents. The Company intends to cooperate
           with the requests of the U.S. Attorney's Office.

           SEC Investigation

           On March 7, 2007, the Company received a letter from the Pacific
           Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
           requesting that NCFC preserve certain documents. On March 12, 2007,
           the Company received a letter from the staff of the Pacific Regional
           Office of the SEC stating that the staff was conducting a
           preliminary investigation involving the Company and requesting
           production of certain documents. The staff of the SEC had also
           previously requested a meeting with the Company to discuss the
           events leading up to the Company's previous announcement of the need
           to restate certain of its historical financial statements. The
           Company intends to cooperate with the requests of the SEC.

           State Regulatory Actions

           The Company has been engaged in recent ongoing discussions with its
           state regulators regarding the Company's funding constraints and the
           impact on consumers who are in various stages of the loan
           origination process with the Company. The Company has advised these
           regulators that it has ceased accepting loan applications. In
           addition, the Company has advised these regulators that at this
           time, the Company and its subsidiaries are unable to fund any
           mortgage loans, including mortgage loans for those consumers who
           were already in the loan origination process with the Company. The
           Company has been and is continuing to work cooperatively with these
           regulators to mitigate the impact on the affected consumers,
           including transferring pending loans and loan applications to other
           mortgage lenders. The Company has also been providing daily reports
           to its various regulators regarding the status of loans in process
           in their states, as well as responding to ad hoc information
           requests.

           The Company received cease and desist orders from the States of
           Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York on March 13,
           2007 (collectively, the "March 13 Orders"). New Century Mortgage
           additionally received a Suspension Order from the state of New York
           on March 13, 2007 (the "NCMC Suspension Order"). The NCMC Suspension
           Order suspends New Century Mortgage's mortgage banking license in
           the State of New York for a period not to exceed 30 days, pending
           investigation. On March 14 and 15, 2007, the Company received
           additional cease and desist orders from the States of Connecticut,
           Maryland, Rhode Island and Tennessee (collectively, the "March 14-15
           Orders"). The March 13 Orders and the March 14-15 Orders contain
           allegations that certain of the Company's subsidiaries have engaged
           in violations of applicable state law, including, among others,
           failure to fund mortgage loans after closing. Additionally, on March
           14, 2007, New Century Mortgage and Home123 entered into a Consent
           Agreement and Order with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department
           of Banking, Bureau of Supervision and Enforcement (the
           "Pennsylvania Consent Agreement").

           The March 13 Orders, the March 14-15 Orders and the Pennsylvania
           Consent Agreement restrain the Company's subsidiaries from taking
           certain actions, including, among others, engaging in alleged
           violations of state law and taking new applications for mortgage
           loans in the relevant jurisdiction. The March 13 Orders, the March
           14-15 Orders and the Pennsylvania Consent Agreement also compel the
           subsidiaries to affirmatively take certain actions, including the
           creation of escrow accounts to hold any up front fees collected in
           connection with pending mortgage applications, the transfer to other
           lenders of the outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded
           mortgage loans held by the subsidiaries, and the provision of
           regular information to the state regulators regarding the
           subsidiaries' activities in the applicable state, including the
           status of all outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded
           mortgage loans in that state. The cease and desist order received
           from the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation on March 14
           suspends the licenses of one or more of the Company's subsidiaries
           and seeks to assess administrative penalties.

           The Company and its subsidiaries requested hearings on the cease and
           desist orders issued by regulators in Maryland, Massachusetts,
           Connecticut and Rhode Island on March 23, 2007, and in Tennessee on
           March 27, 2007.

           On March 14, 2007, the Attorney General of Ohio and the Ohio
           Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institution (together,
           the "State") filed a lawsuit against the Company, New Century
           Mortgage and Home123 (collectively, the "Defendants") on March 14,
           2007 in Ohio state court (the "Ohio Complaint"). The Ohio Complaint
           alleges that the Company has engaged in violations of applicable
           state law, including, among others, failure to fund mortgage loans
           after closing. Also on March 14, 2007, the court granted the State's
           motion to enter a temporary restraining order, which was
           subsequently modified by the court on March 16, 2007, against the
           Defendants (as modified, the "TRO"). The TRO restrained the
           Defendants from taking certain actions, including, among others,
           (i) engaging in violations of state law, (ii) soliciting applicants
           and taking new applications for mortgage loans in Ohio and (iii)
           initiating, prosecuting or enforcing foreclosure actions in Ohio.
           The TRO required the parties to confer with respect to restrictions
           regarding foreclosure action and the sale, transfer or assignment of
           loans more than 60 days delinquent. On March 26, 2007, the
           Defendants filed a Motion for Dissolution of Modified Temporary
           Restraining Order and Motion for an Emergency Hearing, and
           Opposition to a Preliminary Injunction. On March 28, 2007, the
           Defendants and the State reached agreement on a Stipulated
           Preliminary Injunction effective for 90 days and submitted it for
           court approval. The Stipulated Preliminary Injunction replaces the
           TRO and provides for a stay of the litigation for 90 days. The
           Stipulated Preliminary Injunction restrains the Defendants from
           taking certain actions, including, among others, engaging in alleged
           violations of state law and taking new applications for mortgage
           loans. The Stipulated Preliminary Injunction also compels the
           Defendants to take certain actions, including the transfer to other
           lenders of any outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded
           mortgage loans, the placement in escrow of any upfront fees
           collected in connection with pending mortgage applications, and the
           provision of regular information to the State regarding the
           Company's activities in Ohio, including the status of all
           outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded mortgage loans. The
           Stipulated Preliminary Injunction also requires the Defendants to
           submit certain loans (and related information) as to which it
           intends to foreclose to the State for the State to review. The State
           may object to the Company proceeding with a particular foreclosure
           and if the Company is unable to convince the State to permit it to
           proceed, the foreclosure will not proceed for the duration of the
           Stipulated Preliminary Injunction. The Stipulated Preliminary
           Injunction also provides for the State to review and object to the
           Defendants selling, transferring or assigning certain loans that are
           more than 60 days delinquent.

           On March 16, 2007, the Company received additional cease and desist
           orders from the State of California (the "California Orders") and
           certain of the Company's subsidiaries entered into consent
           agreements with the State of Florida's Office of Financial
           Regulation and the State of Washington's Department of Financial
           Institutions, respectively, each dated March 16, 2007 (the "March 16
           Agreements" and together with the California Orders, the "March 16
           Orders and Consent Agreements").

           The March 16 Orders and Consent Agreements contain allegations that
           certain of the Company's subsidiaries have engaged in violations of
           state law, including, among others, failure to fund mortgage loans
           after closing. The March 16 Orders and Consent Agreements restrain
           the Company's subsidiaries from taking certain actions, including,
           among others, engaging in alleged violations of state law and taking
           new applications for mortgage loans in the relevant jurisdiction.
           The March 16 Orders and Consent Agreements also compel the
           subsidiaries to affirmatively take certain actions, including the
           creation of escrow accounts to hold any upfront fees collected in
           connection with pending mortgage applications, the transfer to other
           lenders of the outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded
           mortgage loans held by the subsidiaries, and the provision of
           regular information to the state regulators regarding the
           subsidiaries' activities in the applicable state, including the
           status of all outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded
           mortgage loans in that state.

           On March 16, 2007, Home123 received a suspension order (the "Home123
           Suspension Order") from the State of New York Banking Department.
           The Home123 Suspension Order contains allegations similar to those
           included in the NCMC Suspension Order and further provides that
           Home123's mortgage banking license in the State of New York has been
           suspended for a period not exceeding 30 days, pending investigation.
           The Company and Home123 are reviewing the Home123 Suspension Order
           and accordingly have not yet determined whether they will appeal all
           or any portion of the Home123 Suspension Order.

           On March 20, 2007, the Company entered into a Combined Statement of
           Charges and Consent Order with the State of Iowa and a Consent
           Agreement and Order with the State of Maine Office of Consumer
           Credit Regulation, Department of Professional and Financial
           Regulation (together,  the "March 20 Orders"). On March 21, 2007,
           the Company entered into a Consent Order with the State of Michigan,
           Department of Labor & Economic Growth, Office of Financial and
           Insurance  Services and a Consent Order with the State of Wyoming
           Banking Commission (the "March 21 Orders"). On March 23, 2007, the
           Company entered into a Consent Agreement and Order with the State of
           Idaho Department of Finance (the "March 23 Order"). Similar to the
           consent agreements described above, the March 20, 21 and 23 Orders
           contain allegations that certain of the Company's subsidiaries have
           engaged in violations of state law, including, among others, failure
           to fund mortgage loans after closing. They restrain the Company's
           subsidiaries from taking certain actions, including, among others,
           engaging in alleged violations of state law and taking new
           applications for mortgage loans in the relevant jurisdiction. They
           also compel the subsidiaries to affirmatively take certain actions,
           including the creation of escrow accounts to hold any upfront fees
           collected in connection with pending mortgage applications, the
           transfer to other lenders of the  outstanding mortgage applications
           and unfunded mortgage loans held by the subsidiaries, and the
           provision of regular information to the state regulators regarding
           the subsidiaries' activities in the applicable state, including the
           status of all  outstanding  mortgage applications and unfunded
           mortgage loans in that state.

           The Company anticipates that cease and desist orders will continue
           to be received by the Company and its subsidiaries from additional
           states in the future and that the Company and its subsidiaries may
           enter into additional consent agreements similar to those described
           above. The Company does not undertake, and expressly disclaims, any
           obligations to update this disclosure for any such additional cease
           and desist orders or consent agreements or for any developments with
           respect to any of the state regulatory actions described herein.

           The Company intends to continue to cooperate with its regulators in
           order to mitigate the impact on consumers resulting from the
           Company's funding constraints.


            Fremont Investment & Loan

            On March 7, 2006, Fremont Investment & Loan, its parent, Fremont
            General Corporation and the company's wholly owned subsidiary,
            Fremont General Credit Corporation consented to the terms of a
            cease and desist order issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance
            Corporation without admitting to the allegations contained therein.
            The cease and desist order requires, among other things, Fremont to
            cease and desist from the following:

            (1) Operating with management whose policies and practices are
            detrimental to Fremont; (2) operating Fremont without effective
            risk management policies and procedures in place in relation to
            Fremont's brokered subprime mortgage lending and commercial real
            estate construction lending businesses; (3) operating with
            inadequate underwriting criteria and excessive risk in relation to
            the kind and quality of assets held by Fremont; (4) operating
            without an accurate, rigorous and properly documented methodology
            concerning its allowance for loan and lease losses; (5) operating
            with a large volume of poor quality loans; (6) engaging in
            unsatisfactory lending practices; (7) operating without an adequate
            strategic plan in relation to the volatility of Fremont's business
            lines and the kind and quality of assets held by Fremont; (8)
            operating with inadequate capital in relation to the kind and
            quality of assets held by Fremont; (9) operating in such a manner
            as to produce low and unsustainable earnings; (10) operating with
            inadequate provisions for liquidity in relation to the volatility
            of Fremont's business lines and the kind and quality of assets held
            by Fremont; (11) marketing and extending adjustable-rate mortgage
            products to subprime borrowers in an unsafe and unsound manner that
            greatly increases the risk that borrowers will default on the loans
            or otherwise cause losses to Fremont, including (a) adjustable-rate
            mortgage products that qualify borrowers for loans with low initial
            payments based on an introductory rate that will expire after an
            initial period, without adequate analysis of the borrower's ability
            to repay at the fully indexed rate, (b) adjustable-rate mortgage
            products containing features likely to require frequent refinancing
            to maintain affordable monthly payment or to avoid foreclosure, and
            (c)loans or loan arrangements with loan-to-value ratios approaching
            or exceeding 100 percent of the value of the collateral; (12)making
            mortgage loans without adequately considering the borrower's
            ability to repay the mortgage according to its terms; (13)operating
            in violation of Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, in that
            Fremont engaged in transactions with its affiliates on terms and
            under circumstances that in good faith would not be offered to, or
            would not apply to, nonaffiliated companies; and (14) operating
            inconsistently with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's
            Interagency Advisory on Mortgage Banking and Interagency Expanded
            Guidance for Subprime Lending Programs. The cease and desist order
            also requires Fremont to take a number of steps, including (1)
            having and retaining qualified management; (2) limiting Fremont
            General's and Fremont General Credit Corporation's representation
            on Fremont's board of directors and requiring that independent
            directors comprise a majority of Fremont's board of directors; (3)
            revising and implementing written lending policies to provide
            effective guidance and control over Fremont's residential lending
            function; (4)revising and implementing policies governing
            communications with consumers to ensure that borrowers are provided
            with sufficient information; (5) implementing control systems to
            monitor whether Fremont's actual practices are consistent with its
            policies and procedures; (6) implementing a third-party mortgage
            broker monitoring program and plan; (7) developing a five-year
            strategic plan, including policies and procedures for diversifying
            Fremont's loan portfolio; (8) implementing a policy covering
            Fremont's capital analysis on subprime residential loans; (9)
            performing quarterly valuations and cash flow analyses on Fremont's
            residual interests and mortgage servicing rights from its
            residential lending operation, and obtaining annual independent
            valuations of such interests and rights; (10) limiting extensions
            of credit to certain commercial real estate borrowers; (11)
            implementing a written lending and collection policy to provide
            effective guidance and control over Fremont's commercial real
            estate lending function, including a planned material reduction in
            the volume of funded and unfunded nonrecourse lending and loans for
            condominium conversion and construction as a percentage of Tier I
            capital; (12) submitting a capital plan that will include a Tier I
            capital ratio of not less than 14% of Fremont's total assets; (13)
            implementing a written profit plan; (14) limiting the payment of
            cash dividends by Fremont without the prior written consent of the
            Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Commissioner of the
            California Department of Financial Institutions; (15) implementing
            a written liquidity and funds management policy to provide
            effective guidance and control over Fremont's liquidity position
            and needs; (16) prohibiting the receipt, renewal or rollover of
            brokered deposit accounts without obtaining a Brokered Deposit
            Waiver approved by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; (17)
            reducing adversely classified assets; and (18) implementing a
            comprehensive plan for the methodology for determining the adequacy
            of the allowance for loan and lease losses.


  Item 1119 of Regulation AB, Affiliations and Certain Relationships and
             Related Transactions.

            No applicable updates.

  Item 1122 of Regulation AB, Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.

            See Item 15.

            Assurant, Inc. previously excluded the applicable servicing
            criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d)(4)(xii) from the scope of its
            assessment of compliance. Assurant, Inc. has now assessed its
            compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting
            Period of January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 and has
            identified a material instance of noncompliance with that servicing
            criterion. Specifically, Assurant, Inc. did not have, during the
            Reporting Period, sufficient policies and procedures to capture the
            information with respect to the Platform Transactions necessary to
            determine compliance with Item 1122(d)(4)(xii). Accordingly,
            Assurant, Inc. 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.

            The 1122 statements for First American Real Estate Solutions of
            Texas, L.P. (as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC) has
            disclosed the following material instance of noncompliance with the
            servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) of
            Regulation AB applicable to the Company during year ended December
            31, 2006. Account reconciliations for all asset-backed securities
            related bank accounts were not prepared within 30 calendar days
            after the bank statement cutoff date, or such other number of days
            specified in the transaction agreements as required by Item
            1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) of Regulation AB.

            The 1122 statements for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
            (Corporate Trust Services) has disclosed material noncompliance with
            criterion 1122(d)(3)(i), as applicable to the Company during the
            twelve months ended December 31, 2006. Certain monthly investor or
            remittance reports included errors in the calculation and/or the
            reporting of delinquencies for the pool assets.

            Although each servicing criterion required by Item 1122(d) of
            Regulation AB is addressed in one or more of of the Assessment of
            Compliance with Servicing Criteria and related Attestation Reports
            included with this report, of GMAC Mortgage LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage
            Corporation a Servicer, Assessment of Compliance and related
            Attestation Report did not address each of the servicing criteria
            that the Servicer was required to address under the terms of the
            related Servicing Agreement. The Servicer has not identified such
            failure to provide an Assessment and Attestation for these items as
            a material failure to fulfill its obligations under the related
            servicing agreement in the Servicer's Compliance Statement provided
            under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, because the Servicer asserts that
            those items are not applicable to the Servicer.

  Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.

            See Item 15.



                                PART IV


  Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

   (a) Exhibits

    (4)  Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2006, among
         ACE Securities Corp., as Depositor, GMAC Mortgage Corporation as a
         Servicer and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as a Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,
         National Association, as Master Servicer and Securities  Administrator
         and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee (incorporated
         herein by reference from Exhibit 4.1 of the Current Report on Form
         8-K of the registrant, as filed with the Commission).

    (31) Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

    (33) Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
         asset-backed securities.



      <TABLE>

      
         <c>
      a) Assurant Inc. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC <F1>
      b) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Custodian <F1>
      c) First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC <F1>
      d) GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer <F1>
      e) Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer <F1>
      f) Regulus Group LLC as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC <F1>
      g) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer <F1>
      h) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Administrator <F1>
      i) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Paying Agent <F1>
      j) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian <F1>

      </TABLE>

     (34) Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
          criteria for asset-backed securities.

      <TABLE>

      
        <c>
      a) Assurant Inc. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC <F1>
      b) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Custodian <F1>
      c) First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC <F1>
      d) GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer <F1>
      e) Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer <F1>
      f) Regulus Group LLC as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC <F1>
      g) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer <F1>
      h) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Administrator <F1>
      i) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Paying Agent <F1>
      j) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian <F1>

      </TABLE>

     (35) Servicer compliance statement.

      <TABLE>

      
         <c>
      a) GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer <F1>
      b) Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer <F1>
      c) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer <F1>
      d) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Administrator <F1>


      </TABLE>

   (b) See Exhibits identified in Paragraph (a) above.

   (c) Not applicable.


  <F1> Filed herewith.



                                SIGNATURES

  Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be
  signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



    ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-SL1
    (Issuing Entity)

    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    (Master Servicer)

    /s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
    Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master servicer)

    Date: May 27, 2008


  Exhibit Index

  Exhibit No.

    (31) Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

    (33) Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
         asset-backed securities.



      <TABLE>

      
         <c>
      a) Assurant Inc. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
      b) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Custodian
      c) First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
      d) GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
      e) Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer
      f) Regulus Group LLC as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
      g) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
      h) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Administrator
      i) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Paying Agent
      j) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian

      </TABLE>

     (34) Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
          criteria for asset-backed securities.

      <TABLE>

      
        <c>
      a) Assurant Inc. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
      b) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Custodian
      c) First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
      d) GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
      e) Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer
      f) Regulus Group LLC as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
      g) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
      h) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Administrator
      i) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Paying Agent
      j) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian

      </TABLE>

     (35) Servicer compliance statement.

      <TABLE>

      
         <c>

      a) GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
      b) Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer
      c) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
      d) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Administrator


      </TABLE>