PUBLIC VERSION
In prior safeguard proceedings, the Commission has initiated investigations for petitioners claiming to represent less than half of domestic production of the like product. 82 Moreover, in the context of Section 421 China safeguard proceedings, which used the same representativeness standard as petitions under Sections 201 and 202 of the Trade Act, 83 the Commission initiated at least one investigation for petitioners claiming less than half of domestic production. 84 This is consistent with the best reading of the statute, which is that when requiring that a petitioner be“ representative of an industry,” Congress did not intend for the term“ representative” to mean a majority of the domestic industry. 85 If Congress had intended the term“ representative” to mean“ a majority,” it would have defined it that way as it did in other contexts in safeguard proceedings. 86 Thus, on the basis that the QMAA represents 8 of 17
82 See, e. g., Crabmeat from Swimming Crabs; Institution of Safeguard Investigation, 65 Fed. Reg. 15,008
( Mar. 20, 2000)( instituting safeguard investigation); Safeguard Petition on Certain Crabmeat( Mar. 2, 2000) at 8-9( stating that petitioner represented 33 % of domestic production and that additional companies that had agreed to support the safeguard petition represented“ roughly another 13 %” of production), excerpts attached as Exhibit 35.
83 19 U. S. C. § 2451( b)( 1)( 2009)( providing that a Section 421 petition may be filed“ by an entity described in section 2252( a) of this title”); 19 C. F. R. § 206.44( c)( 2009).
84 See, e. g., Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China, 74 Fed. Reg. 19,593( Apr. 29,
2009)( instituting an investigation); Section 421 Petition on Consumer Tires from China( Apr. 20, 2009) at 5( claiming that petitioners accounted for“ 46 percent of the consumer tire production capacity in the industry”) excerpts attached as Exhibit 36.
85 19 U. S. C. § 2252( a)( 1).
86 It is a“ cardinal principle of statutory construction that course must give effect, if possible, to every
clause and word of a statute {.}” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 404( 2000). The text of the statute requires a safeguard petition to be filed by those who are“ representative of an industry.” 19 U. S. C. § 2252( a)( 1). However, in a separate context within safeguard proceedings, the statute requires a petition submitted by a majority of the domestic industry. Specifically, the statute authorizes the President to reduce, modify, or terminate safeguard relief only if“ a majority of the representatives of the domestic industry” submit a petition requesting such change. 19 U. S. C. § 2254( b)( 1)( B). If the drafters of the statute had meant for“ representative” to mean a majority in the context of § 2252( a)( 1), they would have used the term“ majority” as they did in the context of § 2254( b)( 1)( B). The use of different terms within related statutes makes clear that different meanings were intended. See Loughrin v. United States, 573
30