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

                                    FORM 10-K/A

                                  Amendment No.1

                   Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
                      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                             For the fiscal year ended
                                 December 31, 2006

                   Commission file number: 333-127237-02

                New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-S1
          (Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its Charter)

                      New Century Mortgage Securities LLC
           (Exact name of depositor as specified in its Charter)

                      New Century Mortgage Corporation
             (Exact name of sponsor as specified in its Charter)

                  Delaware                                  41-2152421
           (State or other jurisdiction                  (I.R.S. Employer
           incorporation or organization)              Identification Number)

          18400 Von Karman, Suite 1000
          Irvine, California                             92612
         (Address of principal executive offices)      (Zip Code)

            Registrant's telephone number, including area code:
                               (949) 440-7030

          Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
                                     None.

          Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
                                     None.

     This Annual Report on Form 10-K/A omits to disclose the Assessment of
     Compliance with Servicing Criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
     Regulation AB and the Attestation Report of Union Bank of California,
     N.A. required by Rule 15d-18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
     as amended.

     This Annual Report on Form 10-K/A also omits to disclose the Attestation
     Report of New Century Mortgage Corporation required by Rule 15d-18 of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The report provided by New
     Century Mortgage Corporation's independent registered public accounting
     firm contained herein disclaims an opinion with respect to New Century
     Mortgage Corporation's compliance with the Servicing Criteria set forth
     in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB.

     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 is not contained herein, and will not be
     contained, to the best of the Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy
     or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of the
     Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.         [X]

     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" 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  [X] No

     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 of the last business day of
     the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter

     Not Applicable.

     Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant's
     classes of common stock, as of December 31, 2006.

     Not Applicable.

     DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

     None.

     PART I

     ITEM 1.  Business.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 1A.  Risk Factors.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments.

     None.

     ITEM 2.  Properties.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 3.  Legal Proceedings.

     See Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

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

     Not Applicable.

     PART II

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

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 6.  Selected Financial Data.

     Not Applicable.

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

     Not Applicable.

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

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 8.  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 9.  Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
     Financial Disclosure.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 9A.  Controls and Procedures.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 9B. Other Information.

     None.

     PART III

     ITEM 10.  Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 11.  Executive Compensation.

     Not Applicable.

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

     Not Applicable.

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

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 14.  Principal Accounting Fees and Services.

     Not Applicable.

     PART IV

     Additional Items Required by General Instruction J (2)

     Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, Significant Obligor Financial Information.
     None.

     Item 1114(b)(2) and Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB , Significant
     Enhancement Provider Information.
     None.

     Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

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.
<PAGE>

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.
<PAGE>

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.
<PAGE>

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.
<PAGE>

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").
<PAGE>

      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 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 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, in Tennessee on March 27, 2007 and in New
Jersey on March 30, 2007.

      In lieu of a hearing, the State of New York Banking Department (the "New
York Department") advised New Century Mortgage to submit a letter regarding
the NCMC Suspension Order and the New York cease and desist order. On March 28,
 2007, New Century Mortgage sent a letter to the New York Department advising
the New York Department that New Century Mortgage was making every effort to
comply with the New York cease and desist order, but that it was unable to
comply with certain provisions of the New York cease and desist order at this
 time. Therefore, the letter requested that the New York Department modify the
 cease and desist order to remove those provisions that are impracticable for
New Century Mortgage to comply with at this time. The letter further indicates
 that New Century Mortgage was agreeable to a 30-day extension of the New
Century Mortgage Suspension Order as it works to resolve its present liquidity
 issues.


      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, which was entered by
the court. 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 categories
of loans (and related information) as to which it intends to foreclose to the
State for the State to review. The State may object for cause 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 for
cause the Defendants selling, transferring or assigning certain loans that are
more than 60 days delinquent.
<PAGE>

      In the event that the State or the Defendants believe the other is not
 acting in good faith, the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction provides that the
complaining party should notify the other of such concern and if the concern
is not resolved, then either party may notify the other of their intent to
file a motion with the court to terminate the Stipulated Preliminary
Injunction and request to reschedule the previously canceled preliminary
injunction hearing. The Stipulated Preliminary Injunction provides that in
such event neither party will object to the scheduling of a prompt preliminary
injunction hearing or the termination of the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction
at such a preliminary injunction hearing.

      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.

       In lieu of a hearing, the State of California Department of Corporations
(the "California Department") advised New Century Mortgage to submit a letter
regarding the California Orders. On March 30, 2007, New Century Mortgage sent
a letter to the California Department advising the California Department that
New Century Mortgage was making every effort to comply with the California
Orders, but that it was unable to comply with certain provisions of the
California Orders at this time. Therefore, the letter requested that the
California Department modify the California Orders to remove those provisions
that are impracticable for New Century Mortgage to comply with at this time.

      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.
<PAGE>

      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.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

      On April 2, 2007, New Century and certain other of the Registrant's
affiliates (the "Debtors") filed voluntary petitions (the "Bankruptcy Filings")
for reorganization (the "Reorganization Cases") under chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court").  The Reorganization
Cases are being jointly administered by the Honorable Kevin J. Carey under the
caption "In re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-10416."  The
Debtors will continue to operate their businesses as "debtors-in-possession"
under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court.

      Further, on April 2, 2007, New Century Financial Corporation ("NCFC") and
New Century, which is NCFC's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into an
Asset Purchase Agreement (the "Servicing Assets Agreement") with Carrington
Capital Management, LLC (in which NCFC holds an ownership interest) and its
affiliate (collectively, "Carrington") for the sale of its servicing assets and
servicing platform to Carrington for approximately $139 million.  The
consummation of the transaction is subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court,
which will oversee an "overbid" process to give other potential buyers an
opportunity to submit higher and better offers, and other customary closing
conditions.

     Item 1119 of Regulation AB, Affiliations and Certain Relationships and
     Related Transactions.
     None.

     Item 1122 of Regulation AB, Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.
     See Item 15, Exhibits 33.1 and 34.1.

        New Century Mortgage Corporation ("New Century"), an affiliate of
        the Registrant, has reported material noncompliance with applicable
        servicing criteria.  The New Century report on assessment of
        compliance is attached as Exhibit 33.1.  New Century provided the
        registrant with an Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria
        set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB that was filed with the
        Initial Form 10-K (as defined below).  The New Century assessment of
        compliance that is attached to this Form 10-K/A as Exhibit 33.1 has
        been revised from the assessment of compliance that was filed with
        the Initial Form 10-K.  Specifically, the wording of paragraph 5 of
        the assessment of compliance was revised and there were certain other
        amendments to Appendices A, B and C.

     This report on Form 10-K/A omits the Item 1122 attestation report
     (the "Attestation Report") required by Regulation AB for Union Bank of
     California, N.A. ("Union Bank"), the vendor that is responsible for the
     initial processing of cash receipts at the lockbox that is applicable
     to servicing criteria 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv).

On April 2, 2007, the Registrant filed a Form 10-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Initial Form 10-K") that omitted the Attestation
Report required by Regulation AB required by New Century, the servicer of the
mortgage loans under the servicing agreement.  Prior to the filing deadline for
the Initial Form 10-K, New Century informed the Registrant that it had engaged
an accounting firm to perform an attestation engagement relative to compliance
with the provisions of Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31,
2006.  The accounting firm informed New Century that it had not yet completed
its attestation engagement prior to the Initial Form 10-K filing deadline and,
accordingly, was not able to render an opinion on New Century's compliance with
the provisions of Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
prior to the Initial Form 10-K filing deadline.

Subsequent to the filing of the Initial Form 10-K, the accounting firm provided
a report which disclaims an opinion with respect to New Century's compliance
with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB, which
is attached hereto as Exhibit 34.1.

In its report, the accounting firm noted that the Audit Committee of New
Century's parent corporation, New Century Financial Corporation, has initiated
an independent investigation into the issues giving rise to New Century
Financial Corporation's need to restate its 2006 interim financial statements,
as well as the issues pertaining to New Century Financial Corporation's
valuation of residual interests in securitizations in 2006 and prior periods.
This investigation has not yet been completed and, accordingly, the accounting
firm stated that it was not able to perform procedures necessary to complete
its examination of New Century's compliance with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB for loans serviced by New Century that
were included in publicly issued mortgage-backed security transactions issued
on or after January 1, 2006.  The accounting firm further noted that had it
been able to perform procedures necessary to complete its examination,
additional instances of material noncompliance with the applicable servicing
criteria may have been identified.

Because of the restriction on the scope of the accounting firm's examination
discussed in the preceding paragraph, the accounting firm concluded that the
scope of its work was not sufficient to enable it to express, and it did not
express, an opinion on whether New Century is in compliance with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB.

     Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.
     See Item 15, Exhibit 35.

     New Century provided the registrant with a Servicer Compliance Statement
     that was filed with the Initial Form 10-K. The New Century Servicer
     Compliance Statement that is attached to this Form 10-K/A as Exhibit 35.1
     has been revised from the Servicer Compliance Statement that was filed
     with the Initial Form 10-K. Specifically, there were certain amendments
     to Appendix B.
     ITEM 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

     (a) List the following documents filed as a part of the report:

         (1) Not Applicable

         (2) Not Applicable

         (3) Exhibit 4 (a) Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, dated as
             of February 27, 2006 among New Century Mortgage Securities
             LLC, as Depositor, Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee
             and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Certificate
             Registrar and Certificate Paying Agent, Asset Backed Notes,
             Series 2006-S1; (b) Indenture dated as of February 27,2006,
             between New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-S1, as Issuer
             and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee,
             Asset Backed Notes, Series 2006-S1; (c) Servicing Agreement,
             dated as of February 27, 2006, among New Century Financial
             Corporation, as Master Servicer, New Century Home Equity Loan
             Trust 2006-S1, as Issuer and Deutsche Bank National Trust
             Company, as Indenture Trustee, Asset Backed Notes, Series
             2006-S1 and (d) Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of
             February 17, 2006, among New Century Mortgage Securities LLC,
             as Purchaser, New Century Credit Corporation, as Seller and NC
             Capital Corporation as Responsible Party (incorporated herein
             by reference from Exhibits 3.1, 4.1, 99.1 and 99.2 of the
             Current Report on Form 8-K of the registrant, as filed with the
             Commission on March 16, 2006).

             Exhibit 10 Incorporated by Reference as Exhibit 4.

             Exhibit 33.1 Servicer's Annual Report on Assessment of
             Compliance for Year End December 31, 2006.

             Exhibit 33.2 Trustee's Annual Report on Assessment of
             Compliance for Year End December 31, 2006.

             Exhibit 33.3 Assurant Inc.'s Annual Report on  Assessment
             of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2006.

             Exhibit 33.4 FIS Tax Services' Annual Report on Assessment
             of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2006.

             Exhibit 34.1 New Century Mortgage Corporation's Report on
             Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Year End
             December 31, 2006.

             Exhibit 34.2 Trustee's Annual Attestation Report on
             Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Year
             End December 31, 2006.

             Exhibit 34.3 Assurant Inc.'s Annual Attestation
             Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria
             for Year End December 31, 2006.

             Exhibit 34.4 FIS Tax Services' Annual Attestation Report on
             Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Year
             End December 31, 2006.

             Exhibit 35.1 Servicer's Annual Statement of Compliance for
             Year End December 31, 2006.

     (b) See (a) above.

     (c) Not Applicable.





                                 SIGNATURE

          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.



                             By: New Century Mortgage Corporation
                             as Servicer on behalf of the Registrant

                                      By:    /s/ Kevin Cloyd
                                      Name:  Kevin Cloyd
                                      Title: Executive Vice President

     Date: April 4, 2007






     EXHIBIT INDEX

     Exhibit Document

       4   (a) Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, dated as
           of February 27, 2006 among New Century Mortgage Securities
           LLC, as Depositor, Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee
           and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Certificate
           Registrar and Certificate Paying Agent, Asset Backed Notes,
           Series 2006-S1; (b) Indenture dated as of February 27,2006,
           between New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-S1, as Issuer
           and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee,
           Asset Backed Notes, Series 2006-S1; (c) Servicing Agreement,
           dated as of February 27, 2006, among New Century Financial
           Corporation, as Master Servicer, New Century Home Equity Loan
           Trust 2006-S1, as Issuer and Deutsche Bank National Trust
           Company, as Indenture Trustee, Asset Backed Notes, Series
           2006-S1 and (d) Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of
           February 17, 2006, among New Century Mortgage Securities LLC,
           as Purchaser, New Century Credit Corporation, as Seller and NC
           Capital Corporation as Responsible Party (incorporated herein
           by reference from Exhibits 3.1, 4.1, 99.1 and 99.2 of the
           Current Report on Form 8-K of the registrant, as filed with the
           Commission on March 16, 2006).

      10   Incorporated by Reference as Exhibit 4.

      31   Section 302 Certification.

      33.1 Servicer's Annual Report on Assessment of Compliance for
           Year End December 31, 2006.

      33.2 Trustee's Annual Report on Assessment of Compliance for
           Year End December 31, 2006.

      33.3 Assurant Inc.'s Annual Report on Assessment of Compliance for
           Year End December 31, 2006.

      33.4 FIS Tax Services' Annual Report on Assessment of Compliance
           for Year End December 31, 2006.

      34.1 New Century Mortgage Corporation's Report on Assessment of
           Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Year End December 31, 2006.

      34.2 Trustee's Annual Attestation Report on Assessment of
           Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Year End
           December 31, 2006.

      34.3 Assurant Inc.'s Annual Attestation Report on
           Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Year End
           December 31, 2006.

      34.4 FIS Tax Services' Annual Attestation Report on Assessment of
           Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Year End December 31, 2006.

      35.1 Servicer's Annual Statement of Compliance for Year End
           December 31, 2006.