U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20035 MAY 1 1992 Ms.

Nessa Feddis Senior Federal Counsel American Bankers Association 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Ms. Feddis: I am responding to your letter relating to accessibility requirements for automated teller machines (ATM's) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the requirements that apply to ATM's are included in guidelines developed by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board). These guidelines are incorporated into the Department of Justice's ADA regulation. The ADA requires that our regulation be consistent with the guidelines of the Access Board. The provision in question, which applies only to new construction and alterations, requires that a person using a wheelchair be able to reach the controls of an ATM through both a forward and a side reach. This provision was included in the ADA Accessibility Guidelines when they were first published for comment in January 1991. The Guidelines were subject to an extensive public comment process that included 18 public hearings. The concerns that you are now raising were not expressed during the rulemaking process. The Department of Justice takes seriously the concerns that you have stated. As you know, the Access Board recently decided to reopen this issue to public comment through a notice in the Federal Register and to hold a hearing on the matter. The action of the Board has the support and concurrence of the Department of Justice. However, while changes to the rule are under consideration, the Department is not in a position to amend the provision on ATM's, and we are constrained to enforce the requirements of the ADA regulation now in effect. You should be aware that section 2.2 of the ADA

Accessibility Guidelines permits departures from particular technical requirements by use of other designs and technologies 01-00687​ -2where the alternative designs and technologies will provide substantially equivalent or greater access to and usability of the facility. Based on the information you have sent us, it appears that, in some circumstances, the ATM's that are currently available may be usable by individuals with disabilities. If you can demonstrate that particular ATM's, as installed, provide equivalent facilitation, they will be considered as complying with the ADA. You may be able to show that meeting one of the reach ranges specified in S 4.2.5 or S 4.2.6 provides equivalent facilitation, assuming all other requirements for ATM's contained in S 4.34.1, S 4.34.2, and S 4.34.4 are met. You have described two situations as a common occurrence in the banking industry: the installation of new ATM's that were ordered before the effective date of the ADA, and the relocation of existing ATM's, originally installed prior to January 26, 1992. You have suggested that compliance with neither S 4.2.5 nor S 4.2.6 will be possible with respect to many of these machines. While the number of such ATM's is not certain, we are confident that many can be "redeployed" consistent with the standards. For example, they could be used as drive-up-only teller machines, which are not required to comply with SS 4.27.2, 4.27.3, and 4.34.3. (See S 4.1.3(20), exception.) They could also be used at locations where two or more ATM's are provided, because only one is required to comply in that situation. (See S 4.1.3(20).) In limited circumstances, they could be installed outside the specified reach ranges if the use of the particular equipment so dictated (S 4.27.3, exception) or where full compliance would be technically infeasible in alterations due to existing physical or site constraints (S 4.1.6(1)(j)). Please note: The interpretations in the preceding two paragraphs are premised on the information currently available to us and will be revisited based on the information received as a result of the Access Board's notice. Based on the approach that I have outlined here, your fears of an adverse economic impact on ATM vendors and financial institutions should be greatly alleviated. I strongly urge you to submit data and other information to the Access Board in response to its notice.

Sincerely, John R. Dunne Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division 01-00688​ AMERICAN 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. BANKERS Washington, D.C. Association 20036 GOVERNMENT SENIOR FEDERAL COUNSEL RELATIONS/ Nessa E. Feddis OPERATIONS AND 202/663-5433 RETAIL BANKING April 1, 1992 Mr. John L. Wodatch Office on the Americans With Disabilities Act Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 75087 Washington, D.C. 29913 Re: Accessibility requirements for ATMs under the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Dear Mr. Wodatch, The American Bankers Association ("ABA"), NCR, and InterBold ("the ATM vendors") recently submitted the attached petition to the Architectural and Transportation Barriers and Compliance Board ("the Board") to clarify the reach and height requirements for automated teller machines ("ATMs") under the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG").1 Until the issue is resolved, however, financial institutions and major ATM vendors are unable to make critical business decisions. Therefore, ABA and the ATM vendors respectfully request that the Department of Justice issue either a letter or interim regulations specifically stating that under ADAAG wheelchair accessible ATMs must allow either a forward or front reach until final action on the petition. Additionally, we request that the letter or interim regulation provide that used ATMs relocated after January 26, 1992 are not subject to ADAAG. Rather, such ATMs must comply with Sections 36.303 and 36.304 of the Department of Justice's Americans With Disabilities Act regulation. Those sections generally require removal of barriers where readily achievable and the addition of

auxiliary aids and services where such measures do not impose an undue burden. It is vital that the Department of Justice respond promptly to this request given the adverse economic impact on ATM ____________________ 1 The ABA is the national trade and professional association for America's commercial banks, from the smallest to the largest. ABA members represent about 90 percent of the industry's total assets. Approximately 94 percent of ABA members are community banks with assets less than $500 million. InterBold and NCR manufacture about 88% of the ATMs sold in the United States annually. 01-00689​vendors and financial institutions associated with delaying critical business decisions. It is our understanding that the Board is preparing to request comment on the subject of ATM reach and accessibility requirements. However, no final action can be expected for several weeks to allow publication of the request for comment, review of comments, and final action. Neither NCR nor InterBold, the two major ATM vendors, currently have available an ATM which allows both a forward and side reach. Accordingly, until the matter is resolved, the ATM vendors and financial institutions cannot proceed with critical business decisions. The ATM vendors cannot go forward with the design, production, and sale of new ATMs. Financial institutions cannot proceed with: - the installation of newly purchased ATMs; - the relocation and retrofitting of existing ATMs; - the delivery and installation of previously ordered ATMs; - purchase orders for new ATMs; and - the installation of new ATMs. Relying on ANSI-A117 and ergonomic studies, ATM vendors developed and financial institutions installed wheelchair accessible ATMs to best accommodate the needs of all their customers. They also chose side reach ATMs to allow more functions and better security and privacy than provided by a lower forward reach ATM. Moreover, many institutions and people, including Department of Justice staff responding to telephone inquiries, have interpreted ADAAG to allow either a side or forward reach. For these reasons, the majority of wheelchair-accessible ATMs installed and available from the two major vendors allow only a side reach. While Fujitsu, an ATM vendor with approximately 11% of the domestic market, has available an ATM which allows both reaches, there are a variety of reasons that its product may not, as a practical matter, be a solution for

many institutions. For example, a Fujitsu ATM may not be compatible with the institution's existing ATM processing, maintenance, and servicing system. In addition, as the attached petition explains, the flat plane design of that ATM may present accessibility, security, and privacy issues for many institutions. Further, the Department of Justice should allow financial institutions to redeploy ATMs originally installed prior to January 26, 1992 which do not comply with ADAAG until final resolution of this matter. Rather, those ATMs should be subject to Sections 36.303 and 36.304 of the Department of Justice's Americans With Disabilities Act regulations. Those sections generally require removal of barriers where readily 2 01-00690​achievable and the addition of auxiliary aids and services where such measures do not impose an undue burden. ATMs are expensive machines with an average useful life of ten to fifteen years. Because of their expense and longevity, they are often relocated for a variety of reasons. For instance, a bank may replace an old ATM with an upgraded ATM and reinstall the old ATM in another location. It may relocate it in an area where only a less expensive ATM is justified because of the low transaction volume expected. ATMs may also be relocated when the branch moves to a new location. Used ATMs are also often installed in new branches. Financial institutions have invested heavily over many years to install tens of thousands of ATMs nationwide. We do not believe that the subsequent enactment of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") should significantly reduce their utility and useful life, and believe that such a result would be inconsistent with both the letter and intent of that statute. Financial institutions and the ATM vendors are eager to comply with ADA and have taken significant measures in that regard. However, we feel that the additional burden of redesigning and producing even lower wheelchair accessible ATMs, and restricting the relocation of existing ATMs contradicts the much publicized policy of the Bush Administration to avoid overly burdensome, costly, and unnecessary regulations. We believe that an interim regulation or a letter which allows either a side or forward reach and which permits continued use of used ATMs will help to avoid costly business decision delays. This approach will also advance the Administration's policy to minimize regulatory burdens in a manner which does not contradict the implementation and enforcement of the ADA. We will be happy to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely, Nessa Feddis Senior Federal Counsel American Bankers Association David Wetzel InterBold Marketing Manager for Consumers With Disabilities Ken Justice NCR Systems Sales Analyst Self-Service Systems Division 3 01-00691