78360 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Notices 

outside of estuaries seaward 3 nautical 

miles (nmi) (3.5 miles [mi]; 5.6 

kilometers [km]) from Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Alabama, or 9 nmi 

(10.4 mi; 16.7 km) from Texas and 

Florida to the limit of State jurisdiction. 

In the Programmatic EIS, BOEM 

evaluated seven alternatives. All but the 

No Action Alternative focused on 

mitigation measures to avoid or reduce 

the potential environmental impacts 

that could result from future G&G 

activities in the GOM. The 

Programmatic EIS and Record of 

Decision are available at https://

www.boem.gov/regions/gulf-mexico-ocsregion/resource-evaluation/gulf-mexicogeological-and-geophysical-gg. 

After careful consideration, the 

Record of Decision identifies BOEM’s 

selection of Alternative C of the 

Programmatic EIS. Under Alternative C, 

G&G activities would continue to be 

permitted and authorized, and would 

include the mitigation measures, 

monitoring, reporting, survey protocols, 

and guidance that were in place prior to 

the settlement agreement in Natural 

Resources Defense Council Ins., et al., v. 

Bernhardt, et al., Defendants and API, et 

al., Intervenor, Defendants, No. 2:10–cv– 

01882 (E.D. La.), as well as additional 

mitigation and temporal measures for 

survey protocols for seismic airgun and 

nonairgun HRG surveys. While BOEM is 

selecting Alternative C at this 

programmatic stage, rather than 

adopting the non-airgun, HRG survey 

protocol (as described in Appendix B of 

the Programmatic EIS), the protocol will 

be reserved, considered, and applied at 

the site-specific stage, on an as-needed 

basis, to further minimize the potential 

for injury to marine mammals and sea 

turtles. BOEM’s selection of the 

Preferred Alternative meets the purpose 

of and need for the proposed action, 

balances regional and national policy 

considerations, and includes 

appropriate measures to minimize 

potential environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts. This decision 

does not by itself authorize any 

activities. The mitigation measures 

contemplated in Alternative C may be 

supplemented by additional 

requirements or tailored as site-specific 

circumstances warrant in permits or 

other specific authorizations after 

BOEM completes additional 

environmental review. 

Authority: This Notice of Availability 

of a Record of Decision is published 

pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 

1503; 1978, as amended in 1986 and 

2005) implementing the provisions of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.). 

Michael A. Celata, 

Regional Director, New Orleans Office. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26781 Filed 12–3–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1220] 

Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes 

and Products Containing Same (II); 

Notice of Commission Decision Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting a Motion to Intervene 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 14) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

granting a motion to intervene filed by 

non-party Signify North America Corp. 

(‘‘Signify’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Houda Morad, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–4716. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. 

Hearing-impaired persons are advised 

that information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 5, 2020, the Commission 

instituted this investigation under 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 

337’’), based on a complaint filed by 

The Regents of the University of 

California (‘‘Complainant’’). See 85 FR 

62761–62 (Oct. 5, 2020). The complaint, 

as supplemented, alleges a violation of 

section 337 based upon the importation 

into the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain filament light-emitting diodes 

and products containing the same by 

reason of infringement of certain claims 

of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,240,529; 9,859,464; 

10,593,854; 10,644,213; and 10,658,557. 

See id. The notice of investigation 

names the following respondents: 

General Electric Company of Boston, 

Massachusetts; Consumer Lighting 

(U.S.) LLC, d/b/a GE Lighting of 

Cleveland, Ohio; Savant Systems, Inc. of 

Hyannis, Massachusetts; Home Depot 

Product Authority, LLC; Home Depot 

U.S.A., Inc.; and The Home Depot, Inc. 

of Atlanta, Georgia; Feit Electric 

Company, Inc. of Pico Rivera, 

California; Satco Products, Inc. of 

Brentwood, New York; IKEA Supply AG 

of Pratteln, Switzerland; IKEA U.S. 

Retail LLC of Conshohocken, 

Pennsylvania; and IKEA of Sweden AB 

of Almhult, Sweden. See id. The Office 

of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) 

is also a party to the investigation. See 

id. 

On October 26, 2020, Signify filed a 

motion to intervene in this investigation 

pursuant to Commission Rule 210.19 

(19 CFR 210.19). Signify argued that its 

motion is timely and that 

‘‘[i]ntervention is necessary so that 

Signify may properly defend its LED 

products that are alleged to be imported 

and/or sold after importation by the 

Home Depot Respondents.’’ See Mot. at 

1. No party opposed the motion to

intervene except that Complainant

argued that Signify should not be

allowed to intervene as to the issue of

domestic industry because Signify’s

interests on that issue are adequately

represented by the existing parties. See

Complainant’s Resp. at 3 (Nov. 2, 2020).

On November 2, 2020, OUII filed a

response in support of the motion to

intervene.

On November 5, 2020, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID (Order No. 14) granting 

Signify’s motion to intervene. The ID 

notes that ‘‘[n]o party disputes that 

Signify should be allowed to intervene.’’ 

See ID at 2. The ID finds that ‘‘Signify 

may fully participate as a party in the 

investigation, including with respect to 

all claims and defenses at issue in the 

investigation.’’ See id. No petition for 

review of the subject ID was filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the subject ID. Signify is an 

intervenor in this investigation. 

The Commission’s vote for this 

determination took place on November 

30, 2020. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Notices 78361 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 30, 2020. 

Katherine Hiner, 

Supervisory Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26660 Filed 12–3–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–1233] 

Certain Active Optical Cables and 

Products Containing the Same; 

Institution of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

October 29, 2020, under section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on 

behalf of Cosemi Technologies, Inc. of 

Irvine, California. A supplement to the 

complaint was filed on November 16, 

2020. The complaint alleges violations 

of section 337 based upon the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain active optical cables and 

products containing the same by reason 

of infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent No. 8,948,197 (‘‘the ’197 patent’’), 

U.S. Patent No. 9,641,250 (‘‘the ’250 

patent’’), U.S. Patent No. 9,971,115 (‘‘the 

’115 patent’’), and U.S. Patent No. 

9,979,479 (‘‘the ’479 patent’’). The 

complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by the applicable Federal 

Statute. The complainant requests that 

the Commission institute an 

investigation and, after the 

investigation, issue a limited exclusion 

order and cease and desist orders. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. Hearing impaired 

individuals are advised that information 

on this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons 

with mobility impairments who will 

need special assistance in gaining access 

to the Commission should contact the 

Office of the Secretary at (202) 205– 

2000. General information concerning 

the Commission may also be obtained 

by accessing its internet server at 

https://www.usitc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katherine Hiner, Office of Docket 

Services, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, telephone (202) 205–1802. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: The authority for 

institution of this investigation is 

contained in section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1337, and in section 210.10 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2020). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

November 30, 2020, ordered that— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine whether there is a 

violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain products 

identified in paragraph (2) by reason of 

infringement of one or more of claims 1, 

5, 6, 13–15, and 19 of the ’197 patent; 

claims 1–5, 8–10, and 13 of the ’250 

patent; claims 1–6, 9, and 12–16 of the 

’115 patent, and claims 15, 18, and 25 

of the ’479 patent; and whether an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337; 

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the 

plain language description of the 

accused products or category of accused 

products, which defines the scope of the 

investigation, is ‘‘active optical data 

cables, including USB cables (USB A, 

A/C, C/C [USB and Display Port altmode variations], and A/micro-B 

[hybrid]), HDMI cables, and Display 

Port cables and products incorporating 

the same’’; 

(3) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainant is: 

Cosemi Technologies, Inc., 1370 

Reynolds Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, 

CA 92614 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

EverPro Technologies Company Ltd., #9 

Guanggu Road, Wuhan, Hubei 

430073, China 

Fibbr Technologies, #9 Optics Valley 

Avenue, East Lake Hi-tech 

Development Zone, Wuhan, Hubei 

430073, China 

Logitech Inc., 7700 Gateway Blvd., 

Newark, CA 94560 

Facebook Technologies, LLC, 1 Hacker 

Way, Menlo Park, CA 94025 

(4) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

shall designate the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge. 

The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations will not be named as a 

party to this investigation. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as 

amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 

2020), such responses will be 

considered by the Commission if 

received not later than 20 days after the 

date of service by the complainant of the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation. Extensions of time for 

submitting responses to the complaint 

and the notice of investigation will not 

be granted unless good cause therefor is 

shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 30, 2020. 

Katherine Hiner, 

Supervisory Attorney. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26682 Filed 12–3–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P