Final report

bet	18/35
Sana	04.03.2017
Hajmi	4.8 Kb.
	#1694

1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 35

4.2
ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDING OUTREACH FEEDBACK
Outreach efforts were started by defining the stakeholder groups from which feedback was
desired.  Stakeholder groups were identified based upon the following considerations.
x   The stakeholder groups included those identified throughout the Coin Modernization,
Oversight, and Continuity Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-302). These groups included
(but are not limited to) merchants, vending machine and other coin-acceptor
manufacturers, vending machine owners and operators, transit officials, municipal
parking officials, depository institutions, coin and currency handlers, armored-car
operators, car wash operators and American-owned manufacturers of commercial coin-
processing equipment.
Note that for convenience and due to similarity of coin-related issues, the vending
machine owners and operators were further broken down into four subgroups:
o
  Large owners and operators (i.e., at least $5 million [M] annual revenue)
o
  Small owners and operators (less than $5M annual revenue)
o
  Owners and operators of vending machines without modern internal communications
protocols
o
  Bulk vending, i.e., machines having unwrapped or unsorted merchandise, which has
different issues and needs from the traditional vending machine owners and operators.
185

Transit officials were further divided into categories of:
o
  Public transportation fare boxes (where riders deposit payments)
o
  Tollway collection units (where drivers deposit payments into automated coin
collection devices along pay-for-use highways, bridges and similar transportation
systems).
x   The United States Mint shared a list of stakeholder groups (and several organizations i.e.,
stakeholder group members) identified and used during the United States Mint’s outreach
efforts completed during development of the currently minted dollar coin prior to its
introduction into circulation in 2000 [1].
x  The stakeholder group list was supplemented through consultation with SCAN COIN, a
manufacturer of automated coin sorting/counting equipment, who was hired as a
subcontractor to Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC).
x   The United States Mint also shared feedback from a notice for public comment posted on
the Federal Register [2]. Respondents included the general public, current and potential
materials suppliers to the United States Mint, manufacturers of coin-processing
equipment and others.
Members of each stakeholder group, including specific commercial companies and trade
associations, were identified through Internet searches and by referrals from others who were
interviewed as part of the outreach efforts.  While the majority of the data presented below was
obtained from one-on-one discussions with stakeholders, additional input was obtained from a
series of anonymous online questionnaires that were offered to stakeholder groups through
national and/or regional organizations and trade associations that represent the interests of those
stakeholder groups. These questionnaires focused on the denominations and numbers of coins
typically processed, the age and type of fielded coin-processing equipment and other factors used
to quantify the impact resulting from potential changes to the characteristics and/or properties of
US circulating coins.
Table 4-1 identifies the stakeholder groups (approximately ordered in magnitude of the
conversion costs required for the group to prepare for circulation of any coins of new metallic
materials of construction) whose input was gathered, evaluated and discussed below. The
approximate size of the stakeholder group (from available information) and potential issues of
concern to each stakeholder group are highlighted.  Those organizations within each stakeholder
group that provided CTC with direct feedback are also listed in Table 4-1. Organizations that
represent more than one stakeholder group are reported in each such group.  Consistent with the
understanding that information collected from the one-on-one interviews would not be associated
with the organizations that volunteered the information; data in this chapter are presented in a
manner that allows anonymity in individual responses from those who voluntarily completed
interviews for this study.  Information obtained from public forums is referenced. Permission
was obtained for use of any information or statements not in the public domain and attributed to
an organization. Beyond those organizations listed in Table 4-1, approximately 75 other
organizations were contacted, but they were either unable or unwilling to participate in the
associated one-on-one interviews or e-mail exchanges.  Information from questionnaires,
discussed below, was also used to quantify the impact of coin changes to stakeholders.
Comments from a public invitation for input [2] were received by CTC and a summary of these
comments is presented in the section entitled “Public” below.
186

Table 4-1.
Stakeholder Groups Directly Contributing to Outreach
Stakeholder
Group
(Corresponding
Report Section)
Organizations Providing
Direct Feedback
Approximate Size of
Stakeholder Group
(Information as available)
Potential Issues and
Operational
Strategies of
Concern
Vending Machine
Owners and
Operators*
(4.5.1)
†
Coca-Cola
National Automatic
Merchandising
Association (NAMA)
Coin Acceptors, Inc.
(Coinco)
+
MEI
+
Crane Payment Solutions
+
Additional 49 anonymous
questionnaire results
5.3M vending machines
$42.2 billion (B) annual
revenue
200,000 vending machines
that do not use modern
communications protocols
2.0M bulk vending
machines generating
$388M annual revenue
Mean of 3 vending
machines per site
Laundromat
Owners and
Operators*
(4.5.2)
Coin Laundry Association
Multi-Housing Laundry
Association
IDX, Incorporated
ź
Imonex, Inc.
ź
Additional 95 anonymous
questionnaire results
5.1M units
$3.8B annual revenue
Heavily dependent
upon quarter dollar
coins; dollar coins
to a lesser extent
Pay Phone Owners
and Operators*
(4.5.3)
Payphone.com
Phones Plus Telephonix
Coin Acceptors, Inc.
(Coinco)
¸
Imonex, Inc.
¸
425,000 units
Large number of
retired units in
warehouses
Dominated by small
businesses
Municipal Parking
Officials*
(4.5.4)
POM Parking Meters
2.0M units
Upgrade/replacement
costs generally
borne by local
governments
Amusement
Machine Owners
and Operators*
(4.5.5)
American Amusement
Machine Association
Chuck E. Cheese’s –
Johnstown, PA franchise
Imonex, Inc.
¸
Coin Acceptors, Inc.
(Coinco)
¸
1.7M coin acceptors
$750M annual revenue
Currently dominated
by low-technology
coin acceptors
Gaming Machine
Owners and
Operators*
(4.5.6)
Louisiana Amusement and
Music Operators
Association
Osborne Coinage
¸
Estimated 1.0M units
State laws do not
favor use of coins in
these devices
187

Table 4-1.
Stakeholder Groups Directly Contributing to Outreach (continued)
Stakeholder
Group
(Corresponding
Report Section)
Organizations Providing
Direct Feedback
Approximate Size of
Stakeholder Group
(Information as
available)
Potential Issues and
Operational
Strategies of
Concern
Others
¨
American Numismatic
Association
European Vending Association
Royal Canadian Mint
Royal Mint (of the United
Kingdom)
Reserve Bank of New Zealand
N/A
Uniqueness of coin
characteristics and
properties relative
to existing coinage
throughout the
world
Public awareness
Numismatic coin
product sales
Sources for statistics are provided in the text that follows. N/A = not applicable
* Stakeholder is associated primarily with coin-acceptance equipment.
** Stakeholder is associated primarily with coin-handling equipment.
†
Vending machine owners and operators are further broken down into four separate subgroups: large owners and
operators, small owners and operators, owners and operators having vending machines without modern internal
communication protocols and bulk vending.
+
Although not vending machine owners and operators, these organizations provided information that was useful in
understanding and quantifying issues to be faced by the vending machine owners and operators.
ź
Although not laundromat owners and operators, these organizations provided information that was useful in
understanding and quantifying the issues to be faced by the laundromat owners and operators.
¸
Although not an owner or operator within the stakeholder group, these organizations provided information that was
useful in understanding and quantifying the issues to be faced by the laundromat owners and operators.
Ÿ
Transit officials are further broken down into two separate subdivisions: public transportation fare boxes and
tollway collection units.
Ŷ
American-owned manufacturer of commercial coin-processing equipment.
Ɓ
Sales and service center are resident in the US.
^
These organizations are not merchants; however, they provided information that was useful in understanding and
quantifying issues associated with changes to coins relative to the merchant stakeholders.
#
Public depository institutions generally rely upon third-party providers to manage their coins. Therefore, all public
depository institutions and their professional organizations contacted for the present study referred the project team
to armored-car carriers for information to support the purposes and objectives of this study.
¨
Information from these stakeholders is not highlighted in a separate section of this chapter. However, input from
these organizations was included in the discussion that follows.
The questionnaires (see Appendix 4-A) developed by CTC were posted on a secure Web site and
were provided to industry trade associations. The industry trade associations then forwarded the
Web address and instructions for accessing the questionnaire to their members via e-mail.
Voluntary questionnaire feedback could be given by any organizational member; all information
provided was kept anonymous. Results within any stakeholder group were aggregated prior to
reporting to avoid accidentally releasing any individual respondent’s confidential information.
The questionnaires were principally designed to gather quantitative and qualitative information
about the automated devices used to recognize, accept, sort, count, package or process coins.
Summaries of the questionnaire results are provided for the vending (i.e., respondents solicited
by industry trade groups representing the vending industry) and laundromat (i.e., respondents
solicited by trade groups representing the laundromat industry) stakeholders in Appendix 4-B.
Sample sizes for the other stakeholder groups to whom surveys were sent (including car wash
owners and operators, transit officials, and amusement machine owners and operators) were
190

fewer than six total responses. The response rate for these stakeholder groups was not
sufficiently large enough to provide CTC with confidence that anonymity could be properly
maintained even if aggregated results for these stakeholders were presented.  In addition, CTC
did not believe that extrapolating from such limited data to the associated stakeholder group at
large would result in robust and defensible conclusions. Therefore, the magnitude of the impact
to these stakeholders was primarily based upon information from other sources. However,
information from these questionnaires was used to supplement/validate data gathered from other
sources.
4.3
COIN-PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
At the center of any conversion cost assessment is the equipment that processes coins. Dividing
the equipment into those that directly provide a product or service (i.e., coin-acceptance
equipment) and those that sort, count, package or perform like functions (i.e., coin-handling
equipment) allows for a more straightforward analysis since equipment manufacturers are
generally divided along these lines. Further division of coin-processing equipment is discussed
below.  A brief discussion of coin-processing equipment is presented here so that the reader has a
better understanding of the discussion that follows.  The hardware or software that performs
other functions in these various machines is not relevant to this analysis, except as noted.
A further subdivision of coin-processing equipment can be made based upon the type of sensing
technology used to validate coins: passive (hardware-based) and active (hardware- and software-
based).
x  Passive devices mechanically validate a coin based upon physical properties including
dimensions (diameter and thickness), weight and/or edge profile (smooth vs. reeds).
x  Active devices rely upon input from electronic sensors whose output is interpreted
through software. The sensors measure any of several coin characteristics and/or
properties including thickness, diameter, edge profile and electromagnetic signature
(EMS).
83
To validate a coin, the sensor output is compared to known values of
circulating coins.
A large number (estimated to be in excess of 75%) of passive devices will require hardware
upgrades if the dimensions of coins change. A relatively small percentage (less than an
estimated 5%) of passive devices will require hardware upgrades if weight and/or edge profile of
coins change.  Many active devices, on the other hand, can be reprogrammed to recognize and
accept coins of alternative material construction and/or size without requiring any hardware
changes.  Generally, the only instance where hardware changes are required for active devices is
when a new coin set falls outside the dimensional range of the smallest (i.e., the US dime coin)
and largest (i.e., generally the half dollar, dollar or quarter dollar coins, depending on the coin set
recognized by the given coin-processing equipment) coins currently accepted by the device.
83
Electromagnetic signature (EMS) is understood in the industry to mean the electrical signal strength of a nearby
electromagnetic sensor as a coin passes in close proximity to the sensor. The magnetic field in the vicinity of the
emitting sensor, and therefore the electrical current in the EMS receiving sensor, changes as the coin passes by. The
change in electrical signal strength is influenced by the materials of construction along with the thickness and
distribution of materials within the coin. The signal strength and/or its decay rate are then used by software to
validate the coin and determine its denomination.  One key determiner of EMS is electrical conductivity, typically
measured by the percent of the conductivity of the International Annealed Copper Standard (%IACS).
191

Since some degree of variability in coin properties is allowed within coin-processing equipment
due to customary variations in coin manufacture, coin and machine wear, dirt, location of the
coin with respect to the coin validation sensor as the coin passes by, temperature effects and
other factors, upper and lower acceptance limits for each measured characteristic and/or property
for each coin denomination are defined for every model or type of coin-processing device.
84
This range of acceptable values (referred to as the “acceptance window”) is typically plus/minus
three standard deviations from the mean of the associated measured values from a representative
sample of coins.
The level of sophistication of the technology used in any given coin-processing device depends
upon the level of security deemed to be necessary to support commerce and the operating
conditions (temperature, cleanliness, vibration and other factors) under which the device is
expected to operate. If the product or service being offered has a low value (for example,
playing time on an amusement machine), then the coin-validation device (called a coin validator
or a coin acceptor) tends to be of relatively low sophistication. Passive coin validators are
commonly used in these cases. However, when providing a relatively high-priced item (such as
that common to the vending industry) more sophisticated coin validators are generally used since
the owners/operators of the machines not only have a missed sale, but they suffer direct financial
loss (of nearly equal value to the price of the product) from use of slugs or other successful
attempts to steal a product. Active coin validators are commonly used in these applications.
Any given stakeholder group tends to favor a certain level of sophistication in the coin-
processing equipment used in their machines. The technology commonly used by each
stakeholder to validate coins is identified and discussed below in the sections that detail impacts
to each of the stakeholder groups. Costs to upgrade or replace the hardware and/or software used
in the coin-processing equipment resulting from changes to various coin characteristics are then
presented.

Download 4.8 Kb.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:

1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 35