STATUS OF ATM'S

Senator GORTON. Mr. Mancusi, S. 2898 provides that a shared ATM shall not be considered a branch if it is not owned or rented by a bank.

In your view, is there an underlying policy rationale for distinguishing between proprietary and shared ATM's? That is to say, is the provision of a banking service contingent on who owns the machine, why not simply legislate that all ATM's are not branches? Mr. MANCUSI. Senator, if you go back to the time prior to the 1976 court decision IBAA v. Smith, the Comptroller's Office did take the view that an ATM, CBCT, or any other acronym used to describe an unmanned teller machine, was not a branch for the purposes of our branching and chartering policies, statutes, and so forth. The opinion of the Comptroller's Office was overturned in that decision and ATM's owned or established by national banks were subsequently treated as branches.

This is more my personal opinion than speaking for the Comptroller since we have not recently taken a public position in this area, but I certainly think the Comptroller's Office would support any legislation or discussion to the effect that an ATM would be viewed as something other than a branch.

Senator GORTON. In other words, at least speaking for yourself personally, there is no policy distinction based on ATM's?

Mr. MANCUSI. That is correct.

Senator GORTON. Would you seek to get the official views of the Comptroller on that subject and communicate them to us?

Mr. MANCUSI. Yes, sir. I would be glad to. [Response to written question follows:]