This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposedissuance of rules and regulations. Thepurpose of these notices is to give interestedpersons an opportunity to participate in therule making prior to the adoption of the finalrules.Proposed RulesFederal Register82391 
Vol. 85, No. 244 
Friday, December 18, 2020 
NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 
10 CFR Part 26 
[Docket No. PRM–26–6; NRC–2010–0310] 
Erik Erb—Minimum Day Off 
Requirement for Security Officers 
AGENCY : Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. 
ACTION : Petition for rulemaking; 
withdrawal by petitioner. 
SUMMARY : The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) is announcing the withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM–26–6, ‘‘Minimum Day Off Requirement for Security Officers,’’ submitted to the NRC by Erik Erb and 91 co-signers (the petitioners) on August 17, 2010. The petitioners requested that the NRC amend its regulations to decrease the minimum days off requirement for security officers working 12-hour shifts from an average of 3 days per week to 2.5 or 2 days per week. The petitioner withdrew PRM– 26–6 by email dated December 10, 2019. 
DATES : PRM–26–6 was withdrawn on 
December 10, 2019. 
ADDRESSES : Please refer to Docket ID 
NRC–2010–0310 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods: 
•Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 
http://www.regulations.gov and search 
for Docket ID NRC–2010–0310. Address questions about NRC dockets to Dawn Forder; telephone: 301–415–3407; email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For 
technical questions, contact the individual listed in the 
FOR FURTHER  
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 
document. 
•NRC’s Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- 
available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 
adams.html. To begin the search, select 
‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 415–4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS 
accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY  
INFORMATION section. 
•Attention: The PDR, where you may 
examine and order copies of public documents, is currently closed. You may submit your request to the PDR via email at PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 
1–800–397–4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Yanely Malave, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1519, email: Yanely.Malave- Velez@nrc.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On August 
17, 2010, the petitioner submitted PRM– 26–6 to the NRC requesting that it amend its fitness-for-duty regulations to decrease the minimum days off requirement from an average of 3 days per week to 2.5 or 2 days per week for security officers working 12-hour shifts (ADAMS Accession No. ML102630127). On November 23, 2010, the NRC published a notice of receipt of, and request for public comment on PRM– 26–6 in the Federal Register (75 FR 71368). The NRC received 5 comment letters from corporations, professional organizations, and private citizens. The NRC initially determined that the issues raised in PRM–26–6 would be considered in the ‘‘Quality Control/ Quality Verification’’ rulemaking (Docket ID: NRC–2009–0090) and published a Federal Register notice (76 FR 28191) on May 16, 2011, to this effect. On December 9, 2015, the NRC published a notice in the Federal Register discontinuing the QC/QV 
rulemaking (80 FR 76394). By email dated December 10, 2019, the petitioner withdrew PRM–26–6 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20006D919). 
Dated December 3, 2020. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
John R. Tappert, 
Director, Division of Rulemaking, 
Environmental, and Financial Support, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. 
[FR Doc. 2020–27124 Filed 12–17–20; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 
16 CFR Part 432 Trade Regulation Rule Relating to 
Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products 
AGENCY : Federal Trade Commission. 
ACTION : Advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking; request for public comment. 
SUMMARY : As part of the Commission’s 
systematic review of all current FTC rules and guides, the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) requests public comment on the overall costs, benefits, necessity, and regulatory and economic impact of the FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule Relating to Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products (the ‘‘Amplifier Rule’’ or ‘‘Rule’’). 
DATES : Comments must be received on 
or before February 16, 2021. 
ADDRESSES : Interested parties may file a 
comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
below. Write ‘‘Amplifier Rule Review, 16 CFR part 432, Project No. P974222’’ on your comment, and file your comment online through https://www.regulations.gov. If you prefer to 
file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 
Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex A), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex A), Washington, DC 20024. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Jock 
Chung (202–326–2984), Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS82392 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 
1The Electronics Industries Association, an 
industry group with approximately 240 member 
companies in 1974, created the EIA Standard Methods of Measurement. The IHF, an industry group with 37 member companies, created the IHF Standard. 39 FR at 15388. 
2The Commission found that one amplifier was 
reported as advertised with 3 power ratings based on continuous power output and 1 percent distortion when included in a component system, and with a peak power rating with 5 percent distortion when included in a console system. 
3The Commission found that ‘‘a stereo having, for 
example, 20-watts per channel, both channels driven, will give less total power output than a single channel 40-watt amplifier.’’ 39 FR at 15390. 
4Amplifiers running on batteries might have less 
distortion than the same amplifier running on power from an electric outlet, so tests driving the amplifier to a rated distortion level under battery power might measure a higher power output than measurements for the same amplifier driven to the same distortion level under outlet power. 39 FR at 15393. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
I. Background 
In response to misleading or 
confusing power, distortion, and other 
performance claims, the Commission issued the Amplifier Rule in 1974 to standardize the measurement and disclosure of various amplifier performance characteristics. 39 FR 15387 (May 3, 1974). The Rule establishes uniform test standards and disclosures so consumers can easily compare amplifier characteristics. 
Prior to enactment of the Amplifier 
Rule, manufacturers used at least seven different systems to measure amplifier output, including two incompatible measurement systems with broad industry support, the EIA Standard Methods of Measurement and the IHF Standard.
1At that time, the same 
amplifier might have been advertised with different power ratings when incorporated into different products.
2 
Moreover, prior to enactment of the 
Rule, some manufacturers advertised the maximum power output of a single channel of a stereo amplifier. The Commission found that this practice deceptively indicated a stereo amplifier powered both stereo channels at that level simultaneously, which was not necessarily true.
3Manufacturers also 
measured power outputs over short periods of time, which did not account for heat buildup that prevented the amplifiers from being used at the measured output power for longer periods. Additionally, some manufacturers inflated power outputs by measuring amplifier outputs over limited frequency ranges or with excessive distortion, with unrealistic speaker loads, or when operating on battery power.
4 
To address these issues, the Rule 
requires uniform measurements and disclosures for home entertainment 
amplifiers. Specifically, it requires manufacturers to fully drive all associated channels when measuring the power output of sound amplification equipment designed to amplify two or more channels simultaneously. The Rule further sets requirements for measuring and disclosing frequency 
ranges, distortion levels, and speaker loads; requires manufacturers to conduct measurements in still air at a specified temperature to prevent the use of fans or cooling equipment; and requires manufacturers to use outlet power to test amplifiers that can run on either batteries or outlet power. 
In 2000, in response to improvements 
in amplifier design that enabled manufacturers to make inexpensive amplifiers with inaudible levels of harmonic distortion, the Commission exempted certain advertising from the Rule’s Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) disclosure requirement. 65 FR 81232 (Dec. 22, 2000). Additionally, to address the development of self-powered subwoofer-satellite combination speaker systems, the Commission clarified the manner in which the Rule’s testing procedures apply to those systems. 
II. Regulatory Review Program 
The Commission reviews its rules and 
guides periodically to seek information 
about their costs and benefits, regulatory and economic impact, and general effectiveness in protecting consumers and helping industry avoid deceptive claims or unfair practices. These reviews assist the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. 
With the present document, the 
Commission initiates a review of its Amplifier Rule. The Commission solicits comments on, among other things, the economic impact of, and the continuing need for, the Rule; the Rule’s benefits to consumers; and the burdens it places on industry members subject to the requirements, including small businesses. 
III. Issues for Comments 
To aid commenters in submitting 
information, the Commission has 
prepared the following questions related to the Amplifier Rule. The Commission seeks comments on these and any other issues related to the Rule’s current requirements. In their replies, commenters should provide any available evidence, including empirical analysis, that supports their position. 
(1) Need: Is there a continuing need 
for the Rule? Why or why not? 
(2) Benefits and Costs to Consumers: 
What benefits has the Rule provided to consumers, and does the Rule impose 
any significant costs on consumers? Please quantify these benefits and costs wherever possible. 
(3) Benefits and Costs to Industry 
Members: What benefits, if any, has the 
Rule provided to businesses, and does the Rule impose any significant costs, including costs of compliance, on businesses, including small businesses? Please quantify these benefits and costs wherever possible. 
(4) Recommended Changes: What 
modifications, if any, should the Commission make to the Rule to increase its benefits or reduce its costs? How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers? How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for businesses, particularly small businesses? 
(5) Impact on Information: What 
impact has the Rule had on the flow of truthful information to consumers and on the flow of deceptive information to consumers? 
(6) Compliance: Provide any evidence 
concerning the degree of industry 
compliance with the Rule. Does this evidence indicate that the Rule should be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not? 
(7) Unnecessary Provisions: Provide 
any evidence concerning whether any of the Rule’s provisions are no longer necessary. Explain why these provisions are unnecessary. 
(8) Additional Unfair or Deceptive 
Practices: What potentially unfair or 
deceptive practices, not covered by the Rule, related to amplifiers utilized in home entertainment products are occurring in the marketplace? Are such practices prevalent in the market? If so, please describe such practices, including their impact on consumers. Provide any evidence, such as empirical data, consumer perception studies, or consumer complaints, that demonstrates the extent of such practices. Provide any evidence that demonstrates whether such practices cause consumer injury, and quantify or estimate that injury if possible. With reference to such practices, should the Rule be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not? 
(9) Product Coverage: Should the 
Commission broaden the Rule to include products not currently covered? Provide any evidence that supports your position. What potentially unfair or deceptive practices related to products not covered by the Rule are occurring in the marketplace? Are such practices prevalent in the market? If so, please describe such practices, including their impact on consumers. Provide any evidence, such as empirical data, 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS82393 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 
consumer perception studies, or 
consumer complaints, that demonstrates the extent of such practices. Provide any evidence that demonstrates whether such practices cause consumer injury, and quantify or estimate that injury if possible. 
(10) Technological or Economic 
Changes: What modifications, if any, 
should be made to the Rule to account for current or impending changes in technology or economic conditions? How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers and businesses, particularly small businesses? 
(11) Conflicts With Other 
Requirements: Does the Rule overlap or 
conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations? If so, how? Provide any evidence that supports your position. With reference to the asserted conflicts, should the Rule be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not? Are there any Rule changes necessary to help state law enforcement agencies combat deceptive practices in the market for amplifiers utilized in home entertainment products? Provide any evidence concerning whether the Rule has assisted in promoting national 
consistency with respect to the advertising of amplifiers utilized in home entertainment products. 
IV. Comment Submissions 
You can file a comment online or on 
paper. For the Commission to consider 
your comment, we must receive it on or before February 16, 2021. Include ‘‘Amplifier Rule Review, 16 CFR part 432, Project No. P974222’’ on your comment. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 
Because of the public health 
emergency in response to the COVID–19 outbreak and the agency’s heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comment online through the https://www.regulations.gov website. To ensure the Commission considers your online comment, please follow the instructions on the web- based form. 
If you file your comment on paper, 
write ‘‘Amplifier Rule Review, 16 CFR part 432, Project No. P974222’’ on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex A), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: 
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service. 
Because your comment will be placed 
on the publicly accessible website, https://www.regulations.gov, you are 
solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information such as your or anyone’s Social Security number, date of birth, driver’s license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential’’—as provided in section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)— including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names. 
Comments containing material for 
which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your 
comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted publicly at www.regulations.gov—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment, unless 
you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request. 
Visit the FTC website to read this 
request for comment and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before February 16, 2021. For information on the Commission’s privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/ privacy-policy. 
By direction of the Commission. 
April J. Tabor, 
Acting Secretary. 
[FR Doc. 2020–27569 Filed 12–17–20; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 
HUMAN SERVICES 
Food and Drug Administration 
21 CFR Part 1 
[Docket No. FDA–2014–N–0053] 
RIN 0910–AI44 
Requirements for Additional 
Traceability Records for Certain Foods; Extension of Comment Period; Reopening of the Comment Period 
AGENCY : Food and Drug Administration, 
HHS. 
ACTION : Proposed rule; extension of 
comment period; reopening of the comment period. 
SUMMARY : The Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule and reopening the comment period for the information collection related to the proposed rule entitled ‘‘Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods’’ that appeared in the Federal Register of September 23, 2020. We are taking this action in response to a request from stakeholders to extend the comment period to allow additional time for interested persons to submit comments on the proposed rule. We also are taking this action to keep the comment period for the information collection provisions associated with the rule consistent with the comment period for the proposed rule. 
DATES : FDA is extending the comment 
period on the proposed rule published September 23, 2020 (85 FR 59984). Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by February 22, 2021. Submit comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) by February 22, 2021. 
ADDRESSES : You may submit comments 
as follows. Please note that late, 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS