92614 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service to 

Initiate a Proceeding to Change Analytical 

Principles and Notice of Filing Non-Public 

Materials, November 13, 2024 (Petition). The 

proposed change is attached to the Petition 

(Proposal). 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) by January 6, 

2025. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 787–8, 787–9, and 787–10 airplanes, 

certificated in any category, as identified in 

Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787– 

81205–SB550013–00 RB, Issue 001, dated 

August 30, 2024. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 55, Stabilizers. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by possible 

misalignment, at final assembly, of the 

horizontal stabilizer pivot pin lockring, outer 

pivot pin, and outboard spacer. The FAA is 

issuing this AD to address a pivot pin 

outboard spacer that is not set correctly flush 

against the horizontal stabilizer pivot bearing 

and outboard washer, caused by a misaligned 

pivot pin lockring. The unsafe condition, if 

not addressed, could result in decreased 

lateral load capacity, which could cause the 

loss of pivot pin retention parts and lead to 

loss of the horizontal stabilizer and loss of 

continued safe flight and landing. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Required Actions 

Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this 

AD: At the applicable times specified in the 

‘‘Compliance’’ paragraph of Boeing Alert 

Requirements Bulletin B787–81205– 

SB550013–00 RB, Issue 001, dated August 

30, 2024, do all applicable actions identified 

in, and in accordance with, the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Requirements Bulletin B787–81205– 

SB550013–00 RB, Issue 001, dated August 

30, 2024. 

Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for 

accomplishing the actions required by this 

AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin B787–81205–SB550013–00, Issue 

001, dated August 30, 2024, which is referred 

to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 

B787–81205–SB550013–00 RB, Issue 001, 

dated August 30, 2024. 

(h) Exception to Requirements Bulletin 

Specifications 

Where the Compliance Time columns of 

the tables in the ‘‘Compliance’’ paragraph of 

Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787– 

81205–SB550013–00 RB, Issue 001, dated 

August 30, 2024, refers to the Issue 001 date 

of Requirements Bulletin B787–81205– 

SB550013–00 RB, this AD requires using the 

effective date of this AD. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, AIR–520, Continued 

Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or responsible Flight Standards Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the certification office, 

send it to the attention of the person 

identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: AMOC@

faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the responsible Flight Standards Office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair, 

modification, or alteration required by this 

AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company 

Organization Designation Authorization 

(ODA) that has been authorized by the 

Manager, AIR–520, Continued Operational 

Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. 

To be approved, the repair method, 

modification deviation, or alteration 

deviation must meet the certification basis of 

the airplane, and the approval must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Joseph Hodgin, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206–231–3962; 

email: Joseph.J.Hodgin@faa.gov. 

(2) Material identified in this AD that is not 

incorporated by reference is available at the 

address specified in paragraph (k)(3) this AD. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

the material listed in this paragraph under 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) You must use this material as 

applicable to do the actions required by this 

AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 

B787–81205–SB550013–00 RB, Issue 001, 

dated August 30, 2024. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) For Boeing material identified in this 

AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Contractual & Data Services 

(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110– 

SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 

562–797–1717; website myboeingfleet.com. 

(4) You may view this material at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational 

Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

206–231–3195. 

(5) You may view this material at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov. 

Issued on November 12, 2024. 

Peter A. White, 

Deputy Director, Integrated Certificate 

Management Division, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27327 Filed 11–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2025–4; Order No. 8002] 

Periodic Reporting 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

acknowledging a recent Postal Service 

filing requesting the Commission 

initiate a rulemaking proceeding to 

consider changes to analytical 

principles relating to periodic reports. 

This document informs the public of the 

filing, invites public comment, and 

takes other administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: December 

10, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at https://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Proposal 

III. Notice and Comment 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On November 13, 2024, the Postal 

Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 

CFR 3050.11 requesting that the 

Commission initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding to consider changes to 

analytical principles relating to periodic 

reports.1 The Petition presents a 

methodology for developing shapespecific labor productivity data for nonMODS manual distribution activities 

using eFlash volumes and workhours 

derived from costs for the corresponding 

In-Office Cost System (IOCS)-based nonMODS cost pools. Petition at 1. 

II. Proposal 

Background. The Postal Service states 

that measuring labor productivity 

associated with manual letter and flat 

distribution operations ‘‘is a 

longstanding challenge for modeling the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 92615 

2 Id. However, manual processing volume for 

parcels is generated as a ‘‘byproduct of tracking 

scans taken during proceeding activities.’’ Id. 

costs of mail processing flows in the 

development of avoided costs for 

worksharing.’’ Id. Proposal at 1. The 

Postal Service notes that directly 

measuring the number of manually 

processed pieces is ‘‘costly’’ in the 

absence of passive data collection, 

which is possible in automated 

operations. Id. Additionally, the 

reliability of measuring productivity 

depends on accurately measuring 

workhours. Id. 

The Postal Service notes that MODS 

workhours ‘‘have long been used both to 

develop labor costs by cost pool and in 

labor productivity statistics for mail 

processing plants,’’ but operation-level 

workhour data have not been used to 

develop costs for non-MODS operations. 

Id. The Postal Services states that 

manual productivities’ volume inputs 

use either indirect volume 

measurements or special studies of 

distribution productivity, which are 

limited in frequency and scope. Id. at 2. 

The Postal Service notes that, currently, 

the projection of manually processed 

mail volumes is determined as fractions 

of automation piece counts, which has 

not been updated since Fiscal Year (FY) 

2015 ‘‘due to concerns regarding the 

reliability of those conversion 

methods.’’ Id. It also notes that manual 

productivity for incoming secondary 

letter distribution dates to Docket No. 

MC95–1, when plants conducted 

significant amounts of manual incoming 

secondary sortation for letters and flats.2

Although manual productivity has 

focused on plant and Network 

Distribution Center (NDC) operations, 

manual distribution work is 

‘‘concentrated at non-MODS post 

offices, stations, and branches’’ making 

productivities applicable to non-MODS 

operations an important aspect for 

modeling manual mail processing costs. 

Id. 

The Postal Service asserts that the 

eFlash system can be used as a source 

of manual processing volumes for nonMODS operations and covers letters, 

flats, and parcels distribution. Id. at 3. 

These volumes are obtained by 

converting linear measurements (in 

inches) of pieces staged for processing 

into piece counts and is standard 

operating procedure for both larger and 

smaller post offices. Id. Additionally, 

the Postal Service states that eFlash data 

also includes workhours for letter, flat, 

and parcel operations in Labor 

Distribution Code (LDC) 43. Id. 

The Postal Service explains that, to 

determine whether eFlash workhours 

could be used in productivity 

calculations, it investigated ‘‘both the 

extent to which the eFlash workhours 

covered the corresponding mail 

processing cost pools and the extent to 

which the eFlash workhours included 

activities other than the expected shaperelated processing work.’’ Id. The Postal 

Service notes that the concerns are 

‘‘post office activities may be relatively 

fluid over the course of the workday, 

such that actual and clocked work 

activities may systematically differ, and 

relatedly that a substantial amount of 

post office distribution labor may be 

clocked into non-shape-specific mail 

processing operations.’’ Id. at 3–4. The 

Postal Service’s investigation indicated 

that eFlash workhours underestimate 

total labor used in the shape-related cost 

pools and that, as a result, the use of 

eFlash workhours will overstate labor 

productivities. Id. at 4–6. 

Proposal. Based on the discussion 

above, the Postal Service states that its 

proposed productivities would use 

‘‘eFlash-based aggregate volumes for 

letters, flats, and parcels, from the L43L, 

L43F, and L43P lines, respectively, for 

the numerator of the productivity 

(pieces per workhour).’’ Id. at 6–7. The 

Postal Service also states that, to obtain 

corresponding workhour estimates, the 

proposed methodology would convert 

the total cost for the non-MODS manual 

letters, flats, and parcels cost pools into 

hours using the mail processing wage 

rate, and the resulting workhours would 

then be used as the denominator of the 

productivity calculation. Id. at 7. Table 

4 of the Proposal demonstrates the 

proposed conversion of costs to 

workhours for FY 2023. See id. table 4. 

The Postal Service then combines the 

eFlash volumes with the converted 

workhours, which results in the 

productivities presented in table 5 of the 

Proposal. See id. at 8, table 5. 

The Postal Service maintains that the 

proposed changes are an improvement 

to the currently used productivity data. 

Id. at 8. It states that the proposed 

changes ‘‘employ[ ] current data 

collected in ongoing systems that 

directly represent post office 

distribution operations and can be 

updated annually.’’ Id. The proposed 

changes would also eliminate the use of 

‘‘stale’’ data. Id. at 8–9; see generally 

supra. 

Impact. The Postal Service explains 

that ‘‘the new [labor] productivity will 

(other things equal) decrease model 

costs if the new productivity is higher 

or increase them if the new productivity 

is lower.’’ Petition, Proposal at 10. ‘‘The 

change in model costs will then affect 

the model’s proportional adjustment 

factor in the opposite direction. . . .’’ 

Id. 

The Postal Service then explains that 

the magnitude of the effect of the 

productivity change will depend upon 

the extent to which various categories of 

mail require manual processing in 

Function 4 operations. Id. The Postal 

Service again notes that most parcel 

volume receives Function 4 sorts 

whereas most letter and flat volumes 

bypass it, either because of automation 

or presorting to carrier route. Id. 

The Postal Service presents the 

impact of Function 4 letter productivity 

on the letter cost model results in 

USPS–FY23–10 (table 7), the impact of 

Function 4 flat productivity on the FirstClass and USPS Marketing Mail flat cost 

model in USPS–FY23–11 (table 8), and 

the impact of Function 4 flat 

productivity on the piece costs in the 

Periodicals model in USPS–FY23–11 

(table 9). See id. at 11–12. In addition, 

the impact of Function 4 parcel 

productivity on the Parcel Select mail 

processing cost model are filed under 

seal. Id. at 12. 

III. Notice and Comment 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2025–4 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Petition. More 

information on the Petition may be 

accessed via the Commission’s website 

at https://www.prc.gov. Interested 

persons may submit comments on the 

Petition and the Proposal by December 

10, 2024. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, 

Nikki Brendemuehl is designated as an 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2025–4 for consideration of the 

matters raised by the Petition of the 

United States Postal Service to Initiate 

a Proceeding to Change Analytical 

Principles and Notice of Filing NonPublic Materials, filed November 13, 

2024. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
92616 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due December 10, 

2024. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints Nikki 

Brendemuehl to serve as an officer of 

the Commission (Public Representative) 

to represent the interests of the general 

public in this docket. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for the 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27284 Filed 11–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1