Tim Oliver – Vice President, Treasurer: Good afternoon and thank you all for joining us for Rockwell Automation's Q4 2006 earnings release conference call. We did deviate from our typical process this quarter by holding our call this afternoon after the market closed. We needed to do so because we needed to work around our Automation Fair, our annual Automation Fair that starts early tomorrow morning. We appreciate your flexibility very much. I also want to mention that the investor conference that at one time was tentatively scheduled to occur at the Automation Fair will be rescheduled at a later date that minimizes the conflicts for all those involved and we'll obviously keep you posted. It's likely we will defer that until after the January earnings season. Our results were released this afternoon and have been posted to our website at www.rockwellautomation.com. A webcast of the audio portion of this call and the charts that will be referenced during the call are both available at that same website. These will remain there for the next 30 days. With me today are Keith Nosbusch, our Chairman and CEO, and James Gelly, our CFO. Our agenda for today includes some opening remarks by Keith and then James will walk us through both the quarter and the outlook. We'll leave plenty of time at the end of the call to take your questions and again ask that you limit yourself to two questions per participant. This call is expected to last a little less than an hour. As always with these calls I need to remind you that our comments today will include statements relating to the expected future results of the Company and are therefore forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Our actual results may…

Q - Bob Cornell – Lehman Brothers: I guess the first thing I would wonder is how this quarter would differ from what you anticipated when you reported the July quarter? I mean at that point you expected the automotive business to be down 50%, the contribution margin to be 25%, so forth and so on. What really was different in this quarter relative to that expectation?

I think two things. First was that we were not surprised by the overall level of growth in the quarter but we were pleasantly surprised with the very strong results in Europe. Unfortunately, those were offset by an even more dramatic correction in our traditional automotive installed base than we predicted. So I guess I would say that the Detroit phenomenon migrated from not just the Detroit-based OEMs, but to also the supply chain and the broader automotive supply chain in the Great Lakes states, as well as Canada. And so I would say that was weaker than we had thought when we talked about it. We thought it would be pretty similar QoverQ and in fact it wasn't. And then finally, I would say we were also very pleased with the drive in productivity that we were able to accomplish. I would say that the last time we talked in quarter three, quite candidly, we probably felt a little more victimized by the activities in the automotive segment. I think the management team really put their heads down and worked very aggressively at driving productivity, doing that in the SG&A lines as well as the cost of goods sold and really ended up with a much more positive contribution and participation from productivity than we had in Q3 and were able to offset even a weaker revenue line in some very rich margin mix businesses with that productivity. So I would say positive Europe, positive productivity, more negative automotive market and the supply chain around the automotive segment. So that would be how I would characterize it, Bob. Q - Bob Cornell – Lehman Brothers: That does flush it out. One other thought, though, I mean you mentioned the momentum in the integrated architecture platform. Could you give us some more color on what you see going on there? Is it macro economic? Is its industry specific? Geographic? Big, small projects? I mean what's causing that comment about the momentum in the IA platform?

I think the biggest comment would be simply a very hard comparison. If you remember last year in Q4, we had very, very strong Logix growth, as well as basically zero degradation in the PLC business so it was a very, very tough quarter. The positive aspect was we still saw 2 to 3% sequential growth in the Logix platform. So I would say the tough quarter comparison in addition to the need to drive a little hardener the mid range part of that product portfolio on a global basis, and that's an area that we're very focused in and certainly the impact of the auto projects took a little steam out of a traditional strong contributor. So those are a little more of the pieces of that, Bob. Q - Bob Cornell – Lehman Brothers: Could you just explain what that means in terms of order rates and book to bill? Earlier this year you talked about your salespeople were just thrilled about the business and activity level in the channel. Are they just as thrilled or are they taking some time off?

Well, I think everyone is just as thrilled on the product portfolio and, in fact, probably more excited with the capabilities that we have now in the batch, hybrid space, the introduction of integrated safety and the ability to have another price point in the mid range products. So I don't think it's the enthusiasm for the portfolio. A – James Gelly: Let me try and add to that. You asked about book to bill, Bob. I think in the case of a Logix project, you should think about this is something that in some cases takes three months, five months, as much as 11 or 12 months to get from the beginning of the engineering study to the actual order of shipment and so the book to bill is basically a hard concept to apply to the Logix business. But it's fair to say that you had a downdraft in big projects, certainly, to Keith's point in the traditional wheelhouse in the Great Lakes area and offsetting that is smaller projects, both globally and in other places and, in particular, going in the compact Logix front which is at a, call it a more higher volume, lower price point type of project. So it's, I would call we're in the midst of the adjustment process but hopefully that's helpful.

Bob, I guess the only other comment I'd make on that would be during the year, we've added a number of sales resources specifically focused on the architecture. Those take a little bit of time to come up to speed and contribute and I would say we're in the early stages of some of those. We're getting the benefits of what we did a year ago in Europe. We probably still have more of an opportunity to get that benefit in Asia going forward than we've seen to date. So it's back to what James talked about which is the ability of the timing of the investment and getting the benefit of that investment in a short period when a lot of the work is around projects as well as the training and getting the productivity up to speed of those new hires.

Your next question comes from Mark Koznarek – Cleveland Research. Q - Mark Koznarek – Cleveland Research : Just a clarification to start with. Last quarter I recall James took us through a little bit of a tax walk and I thought that we were supposed to have a relatively high reported tax rate in the 37 or 38% range. So what happened there beyond this $14 million of tax gain? A – James Gelly: That's a good question, Mark. If you look just at the Q4 mix of revenue, which as you can see is up 3 or 4% U.S. and is up on average for the non-U.S. part of the company 10%, and you add that to a lot of the work that's going on to move a lot of our businesses to more global structures, we've basically reached sort of a tipping point and the originally anticipated effective tax rate for 2006, which you correctly mention a high rate in Q4, that was in order to reach something that originally was in the 33% effective tax rate for 2006. And as you can see, what we're telling you is that the effective tax rate for 2006 ultimately came in closer to 31 and is almost entirely driven by the rising proportion of non-U.S. taxable income. So it's, I would say, we've been battling to some degree a structure and revenue base in the Company which is very U.S. taxable centric. People have been working for several years now to change that stance. And with some of the success of growth initiatives and some of the faster growth outside the United States than inside the United States, we have driven the kind of blended average tax rate down and you're seeing that coming to fruition in the form…

And your next question comes from the line of John Baliotti - FTN Midwest Securities.

A question, it looks like if we run out Detroit, just to clean that up through 2007 given the declines, it would look like Detroit's going to be something like less than 2% of sales in 2007, less than the second half, maybe a little bit closer to 2% in the first half. I was wondering if we could maybe focus on some other end markets that are bigger percentages of your revenue and maybe what kind of growth rate you saw in some of those other end markets this quarter?

Sure. If we look at the quarter four, we had very strong growth in oil and gas, semiconductors, mining aggregates and cement and the life sciences. Those were all around 20% growth. If we look at the full-year, oil and gas, mining, aggregate and cement, water, wastewater and semiconductor were all above the Company average, well above the Company average. Food, beverage, the home health and beauty and the life sciences grew in the mid to high single-digit range and automotive was about flat. So some good performance across a number of the vertical industries that we are focused on.

James, you mentioned in the headwinds on slide 10, investment spending effects of 2006 growth. Is there a way to give us a sense of just magnitude year-over-year, 2007 over 2006, sort of maybe the dollar or maybe earnings delta that you're talking about? A – James Gelly: I guess I would say the full-year impact of the increment, that is the run rate for the full-year, is probably I'm going to say it's not a point of revenue. You know, it's probably in the half to a point of overall revenue there.

Okay. So versus 2006 over 2005 it's a lot less? A – James Gelly: Yes.

Okay. And then just to finish one last on your assumptions in the guidance with respect to pension, can you give us sort of a high altitude delta what you think that that's going to be versus 2006? A – James Gelly: You know, we probably have a $40 million improvement in pretax related to the whole company look at pensions, just from the lower discount rate and the fully funded plan.

And your next question comes from the line of Scott Davis - Morgan Stanley.

I just want to clarify guidance a little bit. If we look at the $3.70 to $3.90, not to be nitpicky here but you commented that that included Power Systems revenues and profit for full 2007. Did I hear that correctly? A – James Gelly: Yes, you did.

Explicit if it's somewhat dilutive to sell Power Systems, I guess it depends where your stock price is certainly, that guidance would be adjusted appropriately afterwards? A – James Gelly: Let me try and go through that again because you're right, it is fair to say that the points that we're trying to make is I don't know the hour in which the transaction will close. So I don't have the exact timing. I don't know the proceeds within any tolerance that I'd like to talk about on this call. I don't know the timing of the share repurchase. I don't know the price at which I repurchase the stock and as I said before, we don't like making diluted divestitures so what we'd like to do is take 90 days to figure out how to minimize the amount of dilution that's obviously got a component to it which involves figuring out what the right level of SG&A and other things are. So that's a lot of variables and what we're sort of saying is for now, you could leave it in the guidance and assume that in 90 days we'll get back and be a lot smarter on all those variables and including what I can do to mitigate the dilution.

I understand. And maybe Keith, not a fair question necessarily, but when you just talked about the strength in the verticals, a lot of those key verticals, particularly things like oil and gas are businesses that's are primarily for the Power Systems business. When you think about excluding Power Systems and excluding those businesses, clearly you're comfortable with the 7 to 8% outlook that you've laid out for Control Systems but maybe you can talk specifically about which of those verticals you see as key drivers.

Sure, sure. For fiscal year 2007 I'm assuming you mean.

Yes, forward-looking.

First, just to make sure we all have the same perspective, 40% of Control Systems serves the power centric industries that we talk about so it is not a Power Systems only story and it's a very important part, which is one of the reasons we talked a lot to the community about intelligent motor control and our capabilities in that area and how we linked that to the integrated architecture and asset management and the whole support of the plant floor environment. So we have a very strong power centric portion in the Control Systems business. It's not 100% like in Power, but it's a very important part of our business and we had some great growth across those businesses this past year. If we look going forward, certainly we believe that we will continue to see good strength in the oil and gas area, the mining aggregates and cement. These are areas that continue to generate good growth because of the ongoing expansion and investment, because of the resource pricing that's going on as well, as James mentioned earlier, the lack of investment over an extended period of time and, also, just the fact of the cost of energy and that we have a large portion of our business in our power centric area that actually helps customers save energy, reduce energy costs and can mitigate the ongoing increases in energy costs as an input to their manufacturing processes. So we see a lot of opportunity to continue to drive productivity and cost reduction for our customers, somewhat, not totally, but somewhat independent of just their investment in expansion. So we see that as an ongoing viable revenue stream for us into 2007.

Keith, I haven't heard you speak in quite some time about some of the key hybrid markets like food and pharma. Can you talk about the health of those markets?

Yes. Actually, we're having a very good year in the pharmaceutical life sciences area. We had a weaker 2005 and we talked about growth in 2006 and in fact we saw a lot of growth on a global basis. There was a lot of multi-plant rollout of our information platform, the MES platform, that came to us from the Propack Data acquisition and we've strengthened our position at a number of customers in that space. Food continues to be steady growth. As we have said, food by itself is our largest vertical industry. It doesn't have dramatic swings either way, which is why we like it, quite frankly, because it is a steady growth performer. We expect that to continue and now that we have introduced the mid range product, the compact Logix product, we think that has a great bit for some of the smaller machines and mid-sized equipment in the OEM community and at the end user. So we're looking for a good contribution of expansion in our mid range product, particularly at the OEMs, in the consumer facing industries that we focus on. So in 2006, we also launched the home health and beauty vertical, which is an important extension of our consumer products portfolio and we'll get a little more punch out of that going into 2007 and that's the areas that are focused some of our larger global accounts. They're doing the things, the diapers and paper products that are used across a wide continuum of applications and end user needs, so, customer needs, I should say. So that's an area that we put a little additional investment in and look for good returns there as well.

Your next question comes from the line of John Inch - Merrill Lynch.

Thank you and thanks for taking my call. I guess first question, James, what kind of profit conversion rate should we be thinking about for Control Systems and Power Systems? Are they both going to fall within the 30 to 40? How should we think about that? A – James Gelly: You know, I would say probably they both, as you have seen over the last year or two, they both have fallen in that range, sometimes above, sometimes a little below. But when we get a strong architecture growth and the mix is in that direction, then clearly there's upward pressure and you can get to the top of the conversion range. If you have all our architecture all the time you get above the top of the 30 to 40% conversion. I would say Power Systems, you know, given the kind of businesses they're in, they're very well managed with great productivity and are probably in the quarter like this they came in very strong. The other thing I would say is if you look at Control Systems to the extent that there's a mix of solutions businesses, you know, services, it doesn't have much of an investment base, in fact, there's no investment base except for a little receivables, and there they probably come in at the low end but not below the low end of the range.

So basically it sounds like you're saying all else equal, Power Systems convert at a slightly higher rate than Control Systems, again, within the 30 to 40% is part of your thinking? A – James Gelly: I kind of would have said that other way around. In other words, other things being equal, I think Control Systems has the kind of businesses which, when you have the average mix, you can get to the top end of the range at Control Systems pretty handily and I think Power Systems does well to be in the range and probably over time is able to be in the range but probably not as high as Control Systems.

And then just my follow-up. So it sounds like we're looking at a, what, about a $0.15 pension tailwind from 2006 to 2007, roughly speaking? A – James Gelly:

So when we sell Power Systems, I mean, there's going to be some pension contribution as part of that $0.15 that goes with that. Is that a fair way to look at it or, you know, do somehow you retain the pension assets? A – James Gelly: First of all, we're in the midst of a negotiation, but let's just say it would be a decent assumption for you to assume that I keep every asset and I own all of the prior year benefits that have already been earned and accrued. So the only thing you have going forward from a post divestiture standpoint is whatever the interest cost on the prior Power Systems benefit already earned and that would be it and that would be matched against the asset base that I have retained. So basically I don't think so. I think I keep the amount that you're talking about.

The whole $0.15? A – James Gelly: Pretty much. Okay. Great. Thank you.

And your next question comes from the line of Jeff Sprague - Citigroup. Q - Jeff Sprague – Citigroup: Thanks. Good afternoon, everybody. I guess just picking up on that pension question first before I go to my main question, if I've got 15 or $0.16 of pension, kind of my adjusted base for 2006 is $3.50 so I'm looking at 8% earnings growth in the midpoint of your range in 2007 which is kind of equal to your revenue growth target, so there's apparently no operating leverage there so I'm just wondering what else I might be missing in that equation. A – James Gelly: Well, yes, you would have heard earlier that we talked a little bit about the full-year impact of growth investments that come through, that is, no new ones have been approved but you get the full-year benefit of the growth investments that were already approved. But no, I think it's fair to say that the basis of the guidance here is kind of conservatism on price cost, conservatism on volume, some decent productivity and the full-year effect of previously approved kind of reinvestment and then, clearly, we're trying to highlight, give us some time, maybe 90 days is too much to ask. But give us a little time to see if we can improve both the rate of productivity, some of the cost structure stuff we've been talking about and do a little better than is shown here but based on what we see today and looking at the fourth quarter, this is kind of the October guidance. Q - Jeff Sprague – Citigroup: I mean, my opinion it sounds like post deal we're still at $3.70 to $3.90 but we'll give you the 90 days on that. A – James Gelly: Thank you,…

I think it's a combination, Jeff. We certainly, old Asia, mature Asia, pulled down all the growth that we had in the developing Asia. Having said that, though, given the opportunity and our market share in developing Asia, we believe we can grow faster than we currently are and part of that does boil down to the fact that it's taken us time to ramp-up new salespeople. I'll take that one as an execution issue. But the reality is you have to find people. You have to train them. That's not always the easiest thing to do. You can't always find a ready to go person. That's been a little easier for us in Europe, quite frankly. We're having to do a lot of the training of our people and so the cycle time to get a new hire up to a full contributing at the productivity level that we want and that we expect in the region is taking a little longer than it does in other parts of the world. So a little slowness in the ramp-up, but also still a great opportunity and we think we can grow a little faster, even without that delay in the ramp-up. Q - Jeff Sprague – Citigroup: Thanks. And maybe ask just one quick one for James. James, if we kind of normalize to a 31% tax rate why would we go back up towards 32? You said go forward no higher than 32. Shouldn't we be drifting down further? A – James Gelly:

And your last question comes from the line of Steve Tusa – JP Morgan. Q - Steve Tusa – JP Morgan : I just wanted to maybe just break out your total auto exposure and then you've mentioned what Detroit is but then what's kind of the peripheral revenue base with regards to suppliers, just kind of break that down I guess in total auto and then international U.S. and then Detroit, if you could at this stage of the game.

Steve, this is Tim. Think of transportation being about $550 million in aggregate, about 100 of that is non-auto, so think 450 auto globally, think about $100 million of that 450 being not U.S. leaving you $350 million in the U.S., about half of which is big three direct and the other half is supply chain. Q - Steve Tusa – JP Morgan : Okay. And that's the total that you're talking about had such an impact on the three percentage points of growth and that kind of thing.

It’s very hard for us to get specifics on the half that's the supply chain. It's much easier when it's direct to the big three. It's very easy when it's one office in Detroit. We have very good data on a particular office in a particular region and we can attribute most of that to one industry. The rest, we have to extrapolate a little bit to the pain that's spread across the Great Lakes region. Q - Steve Tusa – JP Morgan : Okay. Do you still think you're on track for, you know, as Logix comes up against tougher comps and gets bigger, do you still think you're on track for your 2009 target there in the revenue base?

Yes, yes, we're still targeting that in that timeframe. We expect to cross the billion dollar mark and little continued growth rates at little over 20% gets us there a little after 2009. Q - Steve Tusa – JP Morgan : Last question – I was just wondering if I do a little bit of math on the midpoint of your range with the 7.5% growth at a 35% incremental margin and that's reported operating profit, correct? That 30 to 40% incremental? A – James Gelly: Yes, segment profit. Q - Steve Tusa – JP Morgan : I'm getting about $0.55 of benefit which gets me to about $3.90. Are there any significant, you know, you don't have to even give numbers but directionally significant moving parts below the operating profit line that are going to change? I know interest was a little bit higher this quarter. You know, how should we think about those other accounts kind of below the operating line for 2007 directionally? A – James Gelly: I think you hit the main below the line item which is somewhat higher interest and no, there isn't another big thing moving around beneath the waves that take away from your analysis. Q - Steve Tusa – JP Morgan : Sorry, One last one. I'm going to slip one in here. What are you guys, outside of auto now, what keeps you up at night? What are you most worried about when you see the end market, the macro environment for 2007, I guess, this cycle, just kind of your commentary on where are we in the cycle?

Well, where we think we are in the cycle is we've kind of paraphrased this in innings before and we think we're into the sixth inning which is really we're, after three plus years of growth, we certainly believe we're at the point where we're seeing decelerated growth but still growth and now I'm speaking mainly of the U.S. So we're in the period of time where we're going to see growth. It's going to slow some. But still, still growth and opportunities for us to grow share and as we talked about we're expanding our served markets so we continue to see gains walked around the country. The west and the south we're doing very well many and the Great Lakes region is the drag at the moment. But certainly we don't see a large change in what our outlook is, other than the automotive industry, and one measure that we look at is the financial health of companies and I don't think there has been more cash on their balance sheets than at any time. So we're still seeing a reluctance to spend so it's still very measured investment, but we're seeing continued investments so with the help of the companies, with the cash position, we expect that capital expenditures in 2007 will continue to be positive and generate the growth opportunities that we're talking about for 7 to 8%. So overall in the U.S., we still see a generally strong economy and with a big impact in the automotive sector and the supply chain that supports it. But other than that, we don't see much change from where we're currently at.

That ends our call. Thanks for your help and thanks all for joining us.

That concludes today's conference. At this time you may now disconnect. Thank you.