Our disclosure identified the factors used to estimate the range that API and NCR’s shared potential liability could encompass and included the projected total cost, which has regularly been updated as actual data and more refined estimates became available. We did not provide greater detail with respect to the components of the range due to the uncertainties then present, including the total cleanup costs, total natural resource damages and the applicability of defenses thereto, a wide variety in liability assessments from a number of sources regarding the API/NCR share (ranging from 4% to over 60%), and the broad scope of inherently variable equitable factors that could be applied to an allocation under CERCLA, whether on appeal or otherwise. In light of these uncertainties, any articulation of the range at the time in question would have been, in our view, so arbitrary as to lack meaningful guidance for investors and, therefore, would not have been material and potentially could have been misleading.

The 2008 Form 10-K disclosure was consistent at the time with SEC Release 33-8350’s guidance concerning uncertainties and reasonable availability of quantitative information. Notwithstanding this; as we note below, later in 2009 and in light of developments in the litigation, we did specifically note certain positions taken by some PRPs that API and NCR should bear the entirety of the remediation costs. We believe this likewise was consistent with SEC Release 33-8350’s instructions concerning reasonably available quantitative information and perceived trends.

We also believed that additional quantitative disclosure would not have been advantageous to NCR’s shareholders in light of the pending negotiations and litigation. With respect to this point, we understood from previous communications with the Staff that this was acceptable. See, for example, NCR correspondence to the Staff dated July 3, 2002 and February 11, 2003 (referencing telephone conference with Staff on January 16, 2003).

Settlement negotiations between and among the key PRPs both before and during the allocation litigation have supported our estimate of the combined API/NCR share. In the course of formal mediated negotiations that took place over a lengthy period of time in 2007, other PRPs acknowledged substantial

likely exposure on their part as reflected in the settlement offers they made, and, notwithstanding positions taken in the litigation, all parties negotiated on the basis that API and NCR would contribute a combined share that was considerably less than 100%. While the precise offers that were made remain confidential, and although a final settlement was not achieved due to a variety of factors, including the receipt in late 2007 of new and higher remediation cost estimates, the financial contributions proposed by the other PRPs in those negotiations were substantial. Additionally, NCR negotiated and nearly achieved a subsequent separate settlement with a major PRP in 2008 in which that PRP was prepared to assume a significant percentage of Operating Unit (OU) 4 clean-up costs. These potential settlements, if achieved, would have resulted in a combined NCR/API level of responsibility that was reasonably close to the low end of the range NCR used in computing the reserve and disclosure in our Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2008, which further reinforces our belief in the adequacy of our disclosure at the time.

The court’s December 2009 ruling affects only NCR/API’s contribution action against the other PRPs and has no impact on the state and federal governments’ enforcement rights against the other PRPs, and those PRPs’ liability to the governments for natural resource damages. While we cannot speak for the governments, they have made public remarks to the effect that they expect to recover from or settle with the other PRPs, and have advised the PRPs of their intent to seek natural resource damages from them. Notwithstanding that prospect, in light of the court’s ruling we adjusted our reserve to reflect an expectation that API and NCR will pay for the entirety of the remaining clean-up, at least until an appellate ruling is entered in the contribution action and/or until the governments otherwise choose to seek recovery from the other PRPs. Therefore, given the rights held by the governments against the other PRPs, the Company appropriately considered this aspect in assessing the adequacy of the reserve and related disclosures. If and as the governments do achieve recoveries that reduce the costs API and NCR must bear, we will reassess the reserve as appropriate.

While we respect the court’s decision, the summary judgment ruling is significantly at odds with the law of CERCLA in several respects and we will appeal it as soon as the law permits. In assessing the adequacy of the reserve and related disclosures prior to the ruling, we considered the prospect that the court would rule as it did to be extremely remote, as did our outside counsel and counsel for several of the other parties. Therefore, until immediately prior to this highly unexpected ruling, we did not believe that quantification of NCR’s exposure to this specific potential outcome would be meaningful to investors.

The Company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the filing;

Staff comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing; and

The Company may not assert Staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States.

/s/ Robert Fishman