LOCKET SECT/ON
BEFORE THE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20268-0001
-&CEIVE[I
Ocr 16 1-I04 PM‘97
-
P3STAi KAT: civ~,5.;;cn
OFFlCi Ci i!,E SECA~~‘+,H~
~OZSTAL
RP,TE
AND
FEE CHANGES, 1997
Docket No. R97-1
i
REVISED RESPONSE OF UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE WITNESS
PATELUN,AS TO INTERROGATORY
OF NASHUA PHOTO INC., DISTRICT PHOTO
INC., MYSTIC COLOR LAB AND SEATTLE FILMWORKS, INC.
(NDMSIUSPS-T15-1)
The United States Postal Service hereby provides the response of witness
Patelunas to the following interrogatory
of Nashua Photo Inc., District Photo Inc.,
Mystic Color Lab, and Seattle Filmworks, Inc.: NDMS/USPS-T15-1,
filed on
September
17, 1997. The original response was filed on September
29, 1997. The
attachmem
to the response has not been revised; it is attached again for the
convenienc:e of participants
The interrogatory
is stated verbatim and is followed by the response
Respectfully
submitted,
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
By its attorneys:
Daniel J. Foucheaux, Jr.
Chief Counsel, Ratemaking
L
m.Dd
Susan M. Duchek
475 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W.
Washingtomn, D.C. 20269-l 137
(202) 268--2990; Fax -5402
October 16, 1997
Response of United States Postal Service Witness Patelunas
to Interrogatories of
Nashua Photo, District Photo, Mystic Color Lab and Seattle Filmworks
(Revised 10/16/97)
NDMSIUSPS-T15-1
Please refer to your response NDMSIUSPS-T33-24
(redirected to you from
witness Sharkey), and to LR-H-12, page 100, referred to in your answer. The column
‘Incremental FY 98” shows an entry on the ninth row for $100,000 thousand described
as Priority Redesign (98) and charged to Account 53599/Camp 142. In the same
column, on the penultimate row before “Subtotal Trans. Programs” is another entry for
$100,000 thousand, also labeled Priority Redesign and charged to Account
531:311Comp 143. The subtotal for transportation programs, $252,447 thousand, would
appear to include a total of $200,000 thousand in FY 98 for Priority Mail Redesign.
a.
Are the two $lOO,OO thousand entries for “Priority Mail Redesign”
duplicative?
b.
What do Account 53599Komp 142 and Account 531311Comp 143 stand for?
Are they for air or surface transportation?
If either component is for air transportation,
please explain what it represents; e.g., expansion of the Eagle Network, special
“charter” flights not part of the Eagle Network to transport Priority Mail, etc.
Plea,se confirm that the subtotal for Transportation Programs in FY 98 includes
i200,OOO thousand for Priority Mail Redesign. If you do not confirm, or if the two
figures cited above are not additive, please explain.
Your answer notes that LR-H-12 includes “a cost reduction in air transportation
d.
costs due to Priority Mail Redesign.” That does not explain the $50,164 thousand
increase in Priority Mail air transportation costs between the Base Year and Test Year
Before Rates. In fact, when the cost reduction of $82 million is taken into account,
other unexplained factors are causing an increase of $132,164 thousand in air
transportation costs for Priority Mail, which is an astounding increase of 34.5 percent
over base year air transportation costs. Please explain what is causing both the
ground and1 air transport costs for Priority Mail to increase so sharply.
NDMSIUSPS-T15-1
a.
Response:
No, lone of the $100,000 is Highway service costs for component
other $100,000 is Domestic Air service costs for component
b.
143 and the
142
In the Postal Set-vice’s cost model, “Comp 142” stands for component
is Domestic Air transportation
Highway transportation.
and “Comp 143” stands for component
Component
142 is air and component
142, which
143, which is
143 is surface.
These
Response of United States Postal Service Witness Patelunas
to Interrogatories of
Nashua Photo, District Photo, Mystic Color Lab and Seattle Filmworks
(Revised 1 O/l 6/97)
NDMSIUSPS-T15-1
Response continued:
costs are further described in USPS Library References
H-l (Section 14.1 .I) and H-9
(Pages 123-125)
C.
Part c is confirmed.
d.
Please refer to Attachment
I to this response.
show the cost changes that appear in the rollforward
Lines 1 - 19 in columns (2-5)
model from Base Year 1996
through Test Year 1996 Before Rates. Column (1) reflects the correction
my second revised response to UPS/USPS-T33-36
discussed
in
redirected from Witness Sharkey
Line 21 of c:olumns (1-5) is the total change between the base year and the test year.
Line 22 of czolumns (l-5) is the percentage
change; it is line 21 divided into line 1.
Columns (6-l 0) show the individual impacts in terms of the total change.
For ex:ample,
line 3 of column (6) shows the 9.52% of the total change that was the result of the FY
1996 to FY 1997 cost level effect in the rollforward
model.
As can be seen on line 22 of column (1) the total change in Priority Mail Air
Transportation
costs from the base year to the test year is 31.4% Most of the increase
is the result of the other programs in Test Year 1996, of which, $100,000
Redesign.
Likewise, most of the 104.4% increase for Priority Mail Highway
Transportation
Redesign
is Priority Mail
costs from the base year to the test year is the result of Priority Mail
a&rap
A~~JE~s ssa~!~
way
‘J!~J
g~-~E~-gdSnlSdn
01 asuodsaJ
P~S!A~J puo3as
,e,q, uogmd a6ueq~ luem,aJ 3 (0 l-g)
g au)-) ! IZ a”!1 = 27 auf-! (g-1)
1 w-l - 61 =J!l = IZ au!1 (S-l)
b-tw:,
wns = (61-l) =“!l(s)
‘I WUWWV
~WWJ
(CC-11) sau!l
s,oz
spn
w3
1-W
(1) 103
+dM Sll-SdSfl
(OZ-11) =“!-I (FZ) W’3
V-dM SII-SdSn (01-l) =Wl (t-l) WY3
%EL'OS
ZOO'L9Z
%M'LZ
8 1I
%LL'VZ
S69
%lFtol
%OP‘lE
ZQL'Srl
LO~'OZl
:=JJ”‘-‘S
aflue’-13%
a~~3
zz
IZ
oz
%lVO
%CO.99
%lQ'BL
LSE'EBL
WS
IOS'C
tot'sez
POB'EOS
%SZ%C
%SVLC
%OP IC%OO’O
%OO’O
%PS’O 1
% lZ’S-
0
0
0
0
ZE
PI
Egt’Z0
0
E99’01
Z&Z
000’00 1
ct8’cB0
0
Wl’BZ
PEt’ll-
0
0
0
0
zoz
Z6
16L'tO 1
%Z6'0%OO'O
%OciO
%96'C
%6FO
16L'tOZ
90E'980
0
Ob6'8E
%lO’O
%OO'O
%Oo'O
%OO'O
%OO'O
%QO'O
%EO'O
ZZ6'E l-
%ZE’St
%.EO’O
%S 1'0
%Ct'l
%ZL’EE
99C'Lb9
zos
LOZ'C
ICI’OLI
9zS'ELr
%EB’tl
%OO’O
%OO’O
%OO’O
%OUO
%ZO’O
%lo’O
%Oo'O
%OciO
%OO'O
%OO'O
%tl’o
%lo’O
%LS'Z
%OO'O
%OO.O
%OO'O
%EWL
%LZ'Zl
%S6'L%OO'O
%OO'O
66S'6E
0
WL'ZC
d0
0
0
0
0
t13
L
0
0
8lZ’lZ0
0
%W 1
%ZS'6
9SZ'ZL
tLC'OE
6s
tl
0
0
0
0
09c
cc
lS8’9
BlZ’lZ0
0
LSL'Ql
l06't
ELO'ES
9zt'SZ
av
AN
nw
13
SSC'9ZS
act
9OB'Z
ZZ9’6Cl
L6t'ERC
SOOW96
9
S
t
c
Z
I
w-l
%zE’St 1 %LO.O
83klQ6
61
81
%OL'9L
%ZE'Zf%OO'O
%OO'O
%BS‘t 1
%8Zt-
%!XL%Oo'O
%Oo‘O
%90'LZ
%8C' 1 1
%Oo'O
%OO'O
%OO.O
%Oo'O
%lo'O
(01)
IWl
(6)
JWM
iel....-&i@$...-.-T
1
%88’61
Cal
(L)
(9)
I!W
AwA~B!H
J!V
/
.,
(s)
(t)
IWl
JTM
(cl
I!W
(1)
(1)
AeM’@!H
JW
,....‘~~~e43’lelol’ ‘~~i~~~
uoQe&mdsueJl ,!eW @JO!Jd
..,..,......,,‘,,...,,,.,,,.,...,...........................
I-Sll-SdSn/SwaN
I l~~~wwv
d0
t13
av
AN
AW
13
&DtlL6
<=“uJ”p~
i
i
i
Ll
91
Sl
tl
Cl
Zl
11
01
6
8
DECLARATION
I, Richard Patelunas, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing answers to
interrogatories are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief.
Dated:
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon all
participants of record in this proceeding in accordance with section 12 of the Rules of
Practice.
2w.u
Susan M. Duchek
475 L’Enfalnt Plaza West, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20260-I 137
(202) 268-2990; Fax -5402
October 16, 1997