STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC.

CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS
          (Dollars(Dollars in thousands, except share data)

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS
          (Dollars(Dollars in thousands, except share data)

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (UNAUDITED)
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC.

STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC.

NOTE 1—1 — BASIS OF PRESENTATION

     The accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for complete financial statements.

     In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed financial statements include all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring accruals, considered necessary for a fair presentation of the results of the interim periods. Operating results for the ninethree months ended September 30, 2006March 31, 2007 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year ending December 31, 2006.2007. These financial statements have been prepared on a basis that is substantially consistent with the accounting principles applied in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.2006.

     Organization: Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (“Company”) is principally engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of firearms and investment castings. The Company’s design and manufacturing operations are located in the United States. Sales for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006March 31, 2007 were 95%96% domestic and 5%4% export. The Company’s firearms are sold through a select number of independent wholesale distributors to the sporting and law enforcement markets. Investment castings are sold either directly or through manufacturers’ representatives to companies in a wide variety of industries.

     Use of Estimates: The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

     Prior Year Balances:Reclassifications: Certain prior year balances may have been reclassified to conform with current year presentation.

     Stock Incentive and Bonus Plans: At September 30, 2006,March 31, 2007, the Company has two stock-based compensation plans. Readers should refer to both Item 128, Note 5 and Note 1Item 12 of the Company’s financial statements, which are included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005,2006, for additional information related to these stock-based compensation plans.

     The Company’s 20062007 and 20052006 effective tax rate differs from the statutory tax rate due principally to state income taxes. Income tax payments totaled $14,000$0.6 million for the ninethree months ended September 30, 2006. TotalMarch 31, 2007. No income tax payments duringwere made in the nine monthsquarter ended September 30, 2005 were $3.1 million.March 31, 2006.

     The Company sponsors two defined benefit pension plans which cover substantially all employees. A third defined benefit plan is non-qualified and covers certain executive officers of the Company. The estimated cost of these plans is summarized below (in thousands):

     The Company made contributions totaling $0.5 million related to its defined benefit pension plans in the thirdfirst quarter of 2006.2007. The Company expects its contribution requirements for its defined benefit pension plans for the balance of 20062007 to be approximately $0.5$1.5 million.

     Basic earnings per share is based upon the weighted average numberShares outstanding as of common shares outstanding during the period. On September 26,March 31, 2007 and 2006 the Company repurchased 4,272,000 shares of its common stock, representing 15.9% of the outstanding shares from entities controlled by members of the Ruger family at a price of $5.90 per share. This transaction reduced the weighted average number of common shares outstanding to 26,679,000 shareswere 22,638,720 and 26,832,000 shares for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006,26,910,720, respectively. For both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, the weighted average number of common shares outstanding was 26,911,000 shares.

     Diluted earnings per share reflect the impact of options outstanding using the treasury stock method, when applicable. This resulted in diluted weighted-average shares outstanding for the three and nine months ended September 30,March 31, 2007 and 2006 of 26,684,00022,847,578 shares and 26,835,000,26,911,000, respectively. For both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, the diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding was 26,911,000 shares.

     The only case against the Company alleging liability for criminal shootings by third-parties to ever be permitted to go before a constitutional jury,Hamilton, et al. v. Accu-tek, et al., resulted in a defense verdict in favor of the Company on February 11, 1999. In that case, numerous firearms manufacturers and distributors had been sued, alleging damages as a result of alleged negligent sales practices and “industry-wide” liability. The Company and its marketing and distribution practices were exonerated from any claims of negligence in each of the seven cases decided by the jury. In subsequent proceedings involving other defendants, the New York Court of Appeals as a matter of law confirmed that 1) no legal duty existed under the circumstances to prevent or investigate criminal misuses of a manufacturer’s lawfully made products; and 2) liability of firearms manufacturers could not be apportioned under a market share theory. More recently, the New York Court of Appeals on October 21, 2003 declined to hear the appeal from the decision of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirming the dismissal of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s public nuisance suit against the Company and other manufacturers and distributors of firearms. In its decision, the Appellate Division relied heavily onHamilton in concluding that it was “legally inappropriate,” “impractical,” “unrealistic” and “unfair” to attempt to hold firearms manufacturers responsible under theories of public nuisance for the criminal acts of others.

     Of the lawsuits brought by municipalities or a state Attorney General, twenty have been concluded:Atlanta —– dismissal by intermediate Appellate Court, no further appeal;Bridgeport —– dismissal affirmed by Connecticut Supreme Court;County of Camden —– dismissal affirmed by U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals;Miami —– dismissal

     In the previously reportedNew York City municipal case, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit pursuant to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The trial judge found the Act to be constitutional but denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, stating that the Act was not applicable to the suit. The defendants were given leave to appeal and in fact have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That appeal is pending.

     In theNAACP case, on May 14, 2003, an advisory jury returned a verdict rejecting the NAACP’s claims. On July 21, 2003, Judge Jack B. Weinstein entered an order dismissing theNAACP lawsuit, but this order contained lengthy dicta which defendants believe are contrary to law and fact. Appeals by both sides were filed, but plaintiffs withdrew their appeal. On August 3, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the NAACP’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ appeal of Judge Weinstein’s order denying defendants’ motion to strike his dicta made in his order dismissing the NAACP’s case, and the defendants’ motion for summary disposition was denied as moot. The ruling of the Second Circuit effectively confirmed the decision in favor of defendants and brought this matter to a conclusion.

     Legislation has been passed in approximately 34 states precluding suits of the type brought by the municipalities mentioned above. On the Federal level, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” was signed by President Bush on October 26, 2005. The Act requires dismissal of suits against manufacturers arising out of the lawful sale of their products for harm resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by a third party. The Company is pursuing dismissal of each action involving such claims, including the municipal cases

the timing of costs, in the opinion of management, after consultation with special and corporate counsel, it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company, but may have a material impact on the Company’s financial results for a particular period.

     The Company has reported all cases instituted against it through June 30,December 31, 2006 and the results of those cases, where terminated, to the S.E.C. on its previous Form 10-K and 10-Q reports, to which reference is hereby made.

     Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (the “Company”) is principally engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of firearms and precision investment castings. The Company’s design and manufacturing operations are located in the United States. Substantially all sales are domestic.

     Investment castings are manufactured from titanium and steel alloys. Investment castings are sold either directly to or through manufacturers’ representatives to companies in a wide variety of industries. In July 2006, the Company announced the cessation of titanium castings operations, expected to beoperations. Production of these items was completed in the first quarter of 2007 and no new orders will be accepted. The Company expects to ship approximately $0.5 million of open orders as of March 31, 2007 for titanium castings from inventory during the remainder of 2007. The Company will consolidate its casting operations in its New Hampshire foundry in 2007. The Company does not anticipate that there will be any significant costs associated with this consolidation. The Company continues to manufacture and sell steel investment castings for a wide variety of customers and end uses.

     Because many of the Company’s competitors are not subject to public filing requirements and industry-wide data is generally not available in a timely manner, the Company is unable to compare its performance to other companies or specific current industry trends. Instead, the Company measures itself against its own historical results.

     The Company does not consider its overall firearms business to be predictably seasonal; however, sales of certain models of firearms are usually lower in the third quarter of the year.

     Consolidated net sales were $41.6$48.4 million for the three months ended September 30, 2006.March 31, 2007. This represents an increase of $6.5$1.0 million or 18.6%2.2% from 2005 consolidated net sales of $35.1$47.4 million in the comparable prior year period.

LIFO—During the three months ended March 31, 2007 gross inventories were reduced by $16.5 million, compared to a decrease in gross inventories of $3.0 million in the comparable prior year period. Inventories are not expected to increase above the March 31 levels during the remainder of 2007. The 2007 reduction resulted in a liquidation of LIFO inventory quantities carried at lower costs that prevailed in prior years as compared with the current cost of purchases, the effect of which decreased costs of products sold by approximately $4.4 million and increased gross margin by 9.2% of sales in the three month period ended March 31, 2007. LIFO adjustments of $1.0 million resulted in an increase in cost of products sold in the comparable prior year period. The LIFO reserve was further reduced in 2007 by $1.3 million as a percentresult of the sale of excess titanium inventory. This sale did not have an impact on the statement of income.

Overhead Rate Change—The change in inventory value in the three months ended March 31, 2007 was a reduction of $1.4 million, which recognized the continued progress made in lowering overhead rates the first quarter of 2007. The change in inventory value in the three months ended March 31, 2006 was a decrease of $0.2 million. The impact of the change in inventory value on gross margin was 2.9% of sales was 17.6%in 2007 as compared to 0.4% of sales in 2006.

     Selling, general and administrative expenses were $7.6 million for the ninethree months ended September 30, 2006.March 31, 2007. This represents a declinedecrease of $0.1 million or 1.0% from selling, general and administrative expenses of $7.7 million in the 2005 gross margincomparable prior year period. The decrease reflects $1.1 million severance costs related to the previously announced reduction-in-force program, offset by a reduction in advertising and sales promotion expenses and a non-recurring charge of 19.7%$0.7 million incurred in the first quarter of 2006 related to the retirement of the Company’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

     As a result of the foregoing factors, net income was $8.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007. This represents an increase of $6.6 million or 468.0% from consolidated net income of $1.4 million in the comparable prior year period.

     Historically, the Company has not required external financing. Based on its unencumbered assets, the Company believes it has the ability to raise substantial amounts of cash through the issuance of short-term or long-term debt.

     The sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms are subject to thousands of federal, state and local governmental regulations. The basic federal laws are the National Firearms Act, the Federal Firearms Act, and the Gun Control Act of 1968. These laws generally prohibit the private ownership of fully automatic weapons and place certain restrictions on the interstate sale of firearms unless certain licenses are obtained. The Company does not manufacture fully automatic weapons, other than for the law enforcement market, and holds all necessary licenses under these federal laws. From time to time, congressional committees review proposed bills relating to the regulation of firearms. These proposed bills generally seek either to restrict or ban the sale and, in some cases, the ownership of various types of firearms. Several states currently have laws in effect similar to the aforementioned legislation.

     Until November 30, 1998, the “Brady Law” mandated a nationwide five-day waiting period and background check prior to the purchase of a handgun. As of November 30, 1998, the National Instant Check System, which applies to both handguns and long guns, replaced the five-day waiting period. The Company believes that the “Brady Law” and the National Instant Check System have not had a significant effect on the Company’s sales of firearms, nor does it anticipate any impact on sales in the future. On September 13, 1994, the “Crime Bill” banned so-called “assault weapons.” All the Company’s then-manufactured commercially-sold long guns were exempted by name as “legitimate sporting firearms.” This ban expired by operation of law on September 13, 2004. The Company remains strongly opposed to laws which would restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to lawfully acquire firearms. The Company believes that the lawful private ownership of firearms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the widespread private ownership of firearms in the United States will continue. However, there can be no assurance that the regulation of firearms will not become more restrictive in the future and that any such restriction would not have a material adverse effect on the business of the Company.

     As of September 30, 2006,March 31, 2007, the Company is a defendant in approximately five3 lawsuits allegedly involving its products and is aware of certain other such claims. LawsuitsThese lawsuits and claims fall into two categories:

     The Company has expended significant amounts of financial resources and management time in connection with product liability litigation. Management believes that, in every case involving firearms, the allegations are unfounded, and that the shootings and any results therefrom were due to negligence or misuse of the firearms by third-parties or the claimant, and that there should be no recovery against the Company. Defenses further exist to the suits brought by cities, municipalities, counties, and a state attorney generalcounties based, among other reasons, on established state law precluding recovery by municipalities for essential government services, the remoteness of the claims, the types of damages sought to be recovered, and limitations on the extraterritorial authority which may be exerted by a city, municipality, county or state under state and federal law, including State and Federal Constitutions. Also, “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” signed into law on October 26, 2005 on its face requires dismissal of such claims.

     The only case against the Company alleging liability for criminal shootings by third-parties to ever be permitted to go before a constitutional jury,Hamilton, et al. v. Accu-tek, et al., resulted in a defense verdict in favor of the Company on February 11, 1999. In that case, numerous firearms manufacturers and distributors had been sued, alleging damages as a result of alleged negligent sales practices and “industry-wide” liability. The Company and its marketing and distribution practices were exonerated from any claims of negligence in each of the seven cases decided by the jury. In subsequent proceedings involving other defendants, the New York Court of Appeals as a matter of law confirmed that 1) no legal duty existed under the circumstances to prevent or investigate criminal misuses of a manufacturer’s lawfully made products; and 2) liability of firearms manufacturers could not be apportioned under a market share theory. More recently, the New York Court of Appeals on October 21, 2003 declined to hear the appeal from the decision of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirming the dismissal of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s public nuisance suit against the Company and other manufacturers and distributors of firearms. In its decision, the Appellate Division relied heavily onHamilton in concluding that it was “legally inappropriate,” “impractical,” “unrealistic” and “unfair” to attempt to hold firearms manufacturers responsible under theories of public nuisance for the criminal acts of others.

     Of the lawsuits brought by municipalities or a state Attorney General, twenty have been concluded:Atlanta —– dismissal by intermediate Appellate Court, no further appeal;Bridgeport —– dismissal affirmed by Connecticut Supreme Court;County of Camden —– dismissal affirmed by U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals;Miami —– dismissal affirmed by intermediate appellate court, Florida Supreme Court declined review;New Orleans —– dismissed by Louisiana Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court declined review;Philadelphia —– U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, no further appeal;Wilmington —– dismissed by trial court, no appeal;Boston —– voluntary dismissal with prejudice by the City at the close of fact discovery;Cincinnati —– voluntarily withdrawn after a unanimous vote of the city council;Detroit —– dismissed by Michigan Court of Appeals, no appeal;Wayne County —– dismissed by Michigan Court of Appeals, no appeal;New York State —– Court of Appeals denied plaintiff’s petition for leave to appeal the Intermediate Appellate Court’s dismissal, no further appeal;Newark —– Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division for Essex County dismissed the case with prejudice;City of Camden —– dismissed on July 7, 2003, not reopened;Jersey City —– voluntarily dismissed and not re-filed;St. Louis —– Missouri Supreme Court

claims based upon a Washington, D.C. act imposing “strict liability” for manufacturers of “machine guns.” Based on present information, none of the Company’s products has been identified with any of the criminal assaults which form the basis of the individual claims. The writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the Washington, D.C. act was denied and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the case based upon the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which motion was granted on May 22, 2006. The individual plaintiffs and the District of Columbia, which has subrogation claims in regard to the individual plaintiffs, have appealed.

     The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of theGary case by the trial court, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed this dismissal and remanded the case for discovery proceedings on December 23, 2003.Gary is scheduled to begin trial in 2009. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.Act (“PLCAA”). The state court judge held the PLCAA unconstitutional and the defendants filed a motion was denied on October 23, 2006 basedwith the Indiana Court of Appeals asking it to accept interlocutory appeal on the trial court’s view that the Act is unconstitutional. Interlocutory appellate remedies are being pursued. The case is set for trial in 2009.issue, which appeal was accepted on February 5, 2007.

     In the previously reportedNew York City municipal case, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit pursuant to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The trial judge found the Act to be constitutional but denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, stating that the Act was not applicable to the suit. The defendants were given leave to appeal and in fact have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That appeal is pending.

     In theNAACP case, on May 14, 2003, an advisory jury returned a verdict rejecting the NAACP’s claims. On July 21, 2003, Judge Jack B. Weinstein entered an order dismissing theNAACP lawsuit, but this order contained lengthy dicta which defendants believe are contrary to law and fact. Appeals by both sides were filed, but plaintiffs withdrew their appeal. On August 3, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the NAACP’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ appeal of Judge Weinstein’s order denying defendants’ motion to strike his dicta made in his order dismissing the NAACP’s case, and the defendants’ motion for summary disposition was denied as moot. The ruling of the Second Circuit effectively confirmed the decision in favor of defendants and brought this matter to a conclusion.

     Legislation has been passed in approximately 34 states precluding suits of the type brought by the municipalities mentioned above. On the Federal level, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” was signed by President Bush on October 26, 2005. The Act requires dismissal of suits against manufacturers arising out of the lawful sale of their products for harm resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by a third party. The Company is pursuing dismissal of each action involving such claims, including the municipal cases described above. On June 22, 2006, inThe Company was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on March 23, 2007 from the previously reportedArnold case, case. The matter was thus concluded with no payment by the motion to dismiss based on the Act was denied. Interlocutory appellate remedies are being pursued.Company.

     Punitive damages, as well as compensatory damages, are commonly demanded in manycertain of the lawsuits and claims brought against the Company.claims. Aggregate claimed amounts maypresently exceed product liability accruals and applicable insurance coverage. For claims made before July 10, 2000, coverage is provided on an annual basis for losses exceeding $2 million per claim, or an aggregate maximum loss of $5.5 million annually. For claims made after July 10, 2000, coverage is provided on an annual basis for losses exceeding $5 million per claim, or an aggregate

an accrual established for such costs. In most cases, an accrual is established only for estimated legal defense costs. Product liability accruals are periodically reviewed to reflect then-current estimates of possible liabilities and expenses incurred to date and reasonably anticipated in the future. Threatened product liability claims are reflected in our product liability accrual on the same basis as actual claims; i.e., an accrual is made for reasonably anticipated possible liability and claims-handling expenses on an ongoing basis.

     A range of reasonably possible loss relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. Currently, there are no product liability cases in which a dollar amount of damages is claimed. If there were cases with claimed damages, the amount of damages claimed would be set forth as an indication of possible maximum liability that the Company might be required to incur in these cases (regardless of the likelihood or reasonable probability of any or all of this amount being awarded to claimants) as a result of adverse judgments that are sustained on appeal.

     The Company management monitors the status of known claims and the product liability accrual, which includes amounts for asserted and unasserted claims. While it is not possible to forecast the outcome of litigation or the timing of costs, in the opinion of management, after consultation with special and corporate counsel, it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company, but may have a material impact on the Company’s financial results for a particular period.

     The Company has reported all cases instituted against it through June 30,December 31, 2006 and the results of those cases, where terminated, to the S.E.C. on its previous Form 10-K and 10-Q reports, to which reference is hereby made.

     In the normal course of its manufacturing operations, the Company is subject to occasional governmental proceedings and orders pertaining to waste disposal, air emissions and water discharges into the environment. The Company believes that it is generally in compliance with applicable environmental regulations and the outcome of such proceedings and orders will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position or results of operations of the Company.

     The Company self-insures a significant amount of its product liability, workers compensation, medical, and other insurance. It also carries significant deductible amounts on various insurance policies.

     The valuation of the future defined benefit pension obligations at December 31, 20052006 indicated that these plans were underfunded. While this estimation has no bearing on the actual funded status of the pension plans, itunderfunded by $7.6 million and resulted in a cumulative other comprehensive loss of $12.2$12.4 million on the Company’s balance sheet at December 31, 2005.2006.

     The Company expects to realize its deferred tax assets through tax deductions against future taxable income or carry back against taxes previously paid.income.

     The Company has not made any adjustments to its critical accounting estimates and assumptions described in the Company’s 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on May 1, 2006,March 5, 2007, or the judgmentjudgments affecting the application of those estimates and assumptions.

     In July 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, “AccountingAccounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes-an Interpretation of SFAS No. 109,” which clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in tax positions. Taxes(“FIN 48”).This Interpretation requires thatprescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the Company recognize in its financial statements the impactstatement recognition and measurement of a tax position if that position is more likely than not of being sustainedtaken or expected to be taken in a tax return. This Interpretation also provides guidance on audit.derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and transition. The Company adopted the provisions of FIN 48 are effective for the Company as ofon January 1, 2007. The adoptionpotential impact of FIN 48 on the Company’s financial position is discussed in Note 4 to the condensed financial statements.

     In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157,Fair Value Measurements, (“FAS 157”) and No. 159,The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities,(“FAS 159”). These Standards define fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value under generally accepted accounting principles and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. FAS 157 and FAS 159 are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and interim periods within those fiscal years. The adoption of FAS 157 and FAS 159 are not expected to have a material effectimpact on the Company.Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

     The Company may, from time to time, make forward-looking statements and projections concerning future expectations. Such statements are based on current expectations and are subject to certain qualifying risks and uncertainties, such as market demand, sales levels of firearms, anticipated castings sales and earnings, the need for external financing for operations or capital expenditures, the results of pending litigation against the Company including lawsuits filed by mayors, state attorneys general and other governmental entities and membership organizations, and the impact of future firearms control and environmental legislation, any one or more of which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. The Company undertakes no obligation to publish revised forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date such forward-looking statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of subsequent unanticipated events.

     The Company is exposed to changes in prevailing market interest rates affecting the return on its investments but does not consider this interest rate market risk exposure to be material to its financial condition or results of operations. The Company invests primarily in a bank-managed money market fund that invests principally in United States Treasury instruments, with short-term (less thanall maturing within one year) maturities.year. The carrying amount of these investments approximates fair value due to the short-term maturities. Under its current policies, the Company does not use derivative financial instruments, derivative commodity instruments or other financial instruments to manage its exposure to changes in interest rates or commodity prices.

     The Company’s management, with the participation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (the “Disclosure Controls and Procedures”), as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as of the September 30, 2006.March 31, 2007.

Pursuant to the requirements 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.