quarterly comparisons, or [[ ]] percent of the time.” Def.’s Br. 18 (Staff Report, tbl. V-1-4). 6 . Plaintiffs rely on USEC, Inc. v. United States, 25 CIT 49, 132 F.Supp.2d 1 (2001), which, in part, addressed the proper construction of the pre-Uruguay Round Agreements Act version of the cumulation statute. See USEC, Inc., 25 CIT at 58, 132 F.Supp.2d at 5. In USEC, this Court sustained as reasonable the Commission’s interpretation of the phrase “subject to investigation” (which does not appear in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i)) in declining to cumulate, on one hand, imports that were subject to a suspension agreement at the time the Commission commenced its investigation with, on the other hand, imports that were not subject to a suspension agreement. Id., 25 CIT at 59, 132 F.Supp.2d at 10 (<HOLDING>). USEC is inapposite here. Not only is the
holding the itc may reasonably interpret the subject to investigation provision to mean that imports covered by a suspension agreement in which an investigation is temporarily terminated are not subject to investigation while under that agreement emphasis added holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue holding that statements made to internal investigator of employer were made in an investigation under this subchapter where investigation was pursuant to a charge filed with eeoc holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights holding that an insurer has a duty to conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances