5964 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Notices 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

this review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of these 

reviews for shipments of subject 

merchandise from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided by sections 751(a)(1) 

and (a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For all 

respondents receiving a separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be that 

established in the final results of these 

reviews; (2) for previously investigated 

or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters 

not listed above that have separate rates, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the exporter-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 216.01 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing these preliminary results of 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: February 1, 2010. 

Carole Showers, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy 

and Negotiations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2590 Filed 2–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–833] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From 

Taiwan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

polyester staple fiber (PSF) from 

Taiwan. The period of review is May 1, 

2008, through April 30, 2009. This 

review covers imports of certain 

polyester staple fiber from one 

producer/exporter. We have 

preliminarily found that sales of the 

subject merchandise have been made 

below normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. We will issue the 

final results not later than 120 days after 

the date of publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael A. Romani or Richard 

Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

5, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0198 or 

(202) 482–4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 24, 2009, the Department 

published a notice initiating an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain PSF 

from Taiwan covering the respondents 

Far Eastern Textiles Ltd. (FET) and Nan 

Ya Plastics Corporation (Nan Ya). See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 30052 (June 24, 2009). We 

have rescinded the review with respect 

to Nan Ya. See Polyester Staple Fiber 

from Taiwan: Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 74 FR 41684 (August 18, 

2009). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the order is 

PSF. PSF is defined as synthetic staple 

fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise 

processed for spinning, of polyesters 

measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, 

inclusive) or more in diameter. This 

merchandise is cut to lengths varying 

from one inch (25 mm) to five inches 

(127 mm). The merchandise subject to 

the order may be coated, usually with a 

silicon or other finish, or not coated. 

PSF is generally used as stuffing in 

sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, 

comforters, cushions, pillows, and 

furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 

decitex (less than 3 denier) currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

at subheading 5503.20.00.20 is 

specifically excluded from the order. 

Also specifically excluded from the 

order are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 

18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 

8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture 

of carpeting). In addition, low–melt PSF 

is excluded from this order. Low–melt 

PSF is defined as a bi–component fiber 

with an outer sheath that melts at a 

significantly lower temperature than its 

inner core. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at 

subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 

5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

subject to the order is dispositive. 

Fair–Value Comparisons 

To determine whether FET’s sales of 

PSF to the United States were made at 

less than normal value, we compared 

export price to normal value as 

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

we compared the export price of 

individual U.S. transactions to the 

monthly weighted–average normal 

value of the foreign like product where 

there were sales made in the ordinary 

course of trade, as discussed in the ‘‘Cost 

of Production’’ section below. 

Product Comparisons 

We compared U.S. sales to monthly 

weighted–average prices of 

contemporaneous sales made in the 

home market. We found 

contemporaneous sales of identical 

merchandise in the home market for all 

U.S. sales in accordance with section 

771(16) of the Act. 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that the Department 

normally will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the producer’s or exporter’s 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Notices 5965 

records kept in the ordinary course of 

business, as the date of sale. The 

regulation provides further that the 

Department may use a date other than 

the date of the invoice if the Secretary 

is satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the material 

terms of sale are established. The 

Department has a long–standing 

practice of finding that, where shipment 

date precedes invoice date, shipment 

date better reflects the date on which 

the material terms of sale are 

established. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 

2004), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; 

see also Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Structural Steel Beams From Germany, 

67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

With respect to FET’s U.S. market 

sales, shipment date occurs on or before 

the date of invoice. The date of invoice 

is the date on which the Government 

Uniform Invoice is issued. Further, 

based on record evidence, all material 

terms of sale are established at the time 

of shipment and do not change in the 

subsequent time prior to the issuance of 

the invoice. Therefore, we used the date 

of shipment as the date of sale in 

accordance with our practice. 

With respect to most of FET’s home– 

market sales, shipment date occurs on 

or before the invoice date. Further, 

based on record evidence, all material 

terms of sale are established at the time 

of shipment and do not change in the 

subsequent time prior to the issuance of 

the invoice. We note that FET had some 

home–market sales in which invoice 

dates preceded shipment dates; for these 

home–market sales, we used the invoice 

date as the date of sale in accordance 

with our practice. For all other home– 

market sales, we used shipment date as 

date of sale. 

Export Price 

For sales to the United States, we 

calculated export price in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act because 

the merchandise was sold prior to 

importation by the exporter or producer 

outside the United States to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States and because constructed export– 

price methodology was not otherwise 

warranted. We calculated export price 

based on the free–on-board price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions, consistent with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for the following 

movement expenses: inland freight from 

the plant to the port of exportation, 

inland insurance in Taiwan, brokerage 

and handling, harbor service fees, trade 

promotion fees, and containerization 

expenses. No other adjustments were 

claimed or allowed. 

Normal Value 

Selection of Comparison Market 

To determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales of PSF in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating normal value, we 

compared the volume of the 

respondent’s home–market sales of the 

foreign like product to its volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a) of the 

Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of 

the Act, because the respondent’s 

aggregate volume of home–market sales 

of the foreign like product was greater 

than five percent of its aggregate volume 

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, 

we determined that the home market 

was viable for comparison purposes. 

Cost of Production 

We disregarded below–cost sales by 

FET in the last administrative review of 

the order completed prior to the 

initiation of this review. See Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 18348 

(April 22, 2009); see also Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

6136, 6137–38 (February 5, 2009). 

Therefore, pursuant to section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that the respondent made sales of the 

foreign like product in its comparison 

market at prices below the cost of 

production within the meaning of 

section 773(b) of the Act. 

We calculated the cost of production 

on a product–specific basis, based on 

the sum of the respondent’s costs of 

materials and fabrication for the foreign 

like product plus amounts for general 

and administrative expenses, interest 

expenses, and the costs of all expenses 

incidental to preparing the foreign like 

product for shipment in accordance 

with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. 

We relied on cost–of-production 

information FET submitted in its 

response to our cost questionnaire 

except we adjusted FET’s reported cost 

of manufacturing to account for 

purchases of purified terephthalic acid 

and monoethylene glycol from affiliated 

parties at non–arm’s–length prices in 

accordance with the major–input rule of 

section 773(f)(3) of the Act. 

On a product–specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weighted– 

average cost–of-production figures for 

the period of review to the home– 

market sales of the foreign like product, 

as required under section 773(b) of the 

Act, to determine whether these sales 

were made at prices below the cost of 

production. The prices were exclusive 

of any applicable movement charges, 

packing expenses, warranties, and 

indirect selling expenses. In 

determining whether to disregard 

home–market sales made at prices 

below their cost of production and in 

accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B), 

(C), and (D) of the Act, we examined 

whether such sales were made within 

an extended period of time in 

substantial quantities and at prices 

which permitted the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time. 

We found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s home–market sales were at 

prices below the cost of production and, 

in addition, the below–cost sales were 

made within an extended period of time 

in substantial quantities. In addition, 

these sales were made at prices that did 

not permit the recovery of costs within 

a reasonable period of time. Therefore, 

we disregarded these sales and used the 

remaining sales of the same product as 

the basis for determining normal value 

in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 

the Act. 

Calculation of Normal Value 

We calculated normal value based on 

the price FET reported for home–market 

sales to unaffiliated customers which 

we determined were within the ordinary 

course of trade. We made adjustments 

for differences in domestic and export 

packing expenses in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) 

of the Act. We also made adjustments, 

consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 

of the Act, for inland–freight expenses 

from the plant to the customer and 

expenses associated with loading the 

merchandise onto the truck to be 

shipped. In addition, we made 

adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale in accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410. We made these 

adjustments, where appropriate, by 

deducting direct selling expenses 

incurred on home–market sales (i.e., 

imputed credit expenses and 

warranties) and adding U.S. direct 

selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit 

expenses and bank charges). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
5966 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Notices 

In addition, FET reported one 

transaction in its home–market sales 

database for which it acknowledged it 

had reason to know would be exported 

to the People’s Republic of China. See 

FET’s December 23, 2009, response to 

our supplemental questionnaire. 

Because FET knew or had reason to 

know at the time of sale that this 

transaction was destined for export, we 

removed it from our calculation of 

normal value in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine normal value 

based on sales in the comparison market 

at the same level of trade as the export 

price. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1), 

the normal–value level of trade is based 

on the starting price of the sales in the 

comparison market or, when normal 

value is based on constructed value, the 

starting price of the sales from which we 

derive selling, general, and 

administrative expenses and profit. For 

export–price sales, the U.S. level of 

trade is based on the starting price of the 

sales in the U.S. market, which is 

usually from the exporter to the 

importer. 

To determine whether comparison– 

market sales are at a different level of 

trade than export–price sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). If the comparison–market 

sales are at a different level of trade and 

the difference affects price 

comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which normal 

value is based and the comparison– 

market sales at the level of trade of the 

export transaction, we make a level–oftrade adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

In this review, we obtained 

information from FET regarding the 

marketing stages involved in making its 

reported home–market and U.S. sales 

for each channel of distribution. FET 

reported one channel of distribution 

(i.e., direct sales to distributers) and a 

single level of trade in the U.S. market. 

For purposes of these preliminary 

results, we have organized the common 

selling functions into four major 

categories: sales process and marketing 

support, freight and delivery, inventory 

and warehousing, and quality 

assurance/warranty services. Because 

the sales process and selling functions 

FET performed for selling to the U.S. 

market did not vary by individual 

customers, the necessary condition for 

finding they constitute different levels 

of trade was not met. Accordingly, we 

determined that all of FET’s U.S. sales 

constituted a single level of trade. 

FET reported a single channel of 

distribution (i.e., direct sales to end– 

users) and a single level of trade in the 

home market. Because the sales process 

and selling functions FET performed for 

selling to home–market customers did 

not vary by individual customers, we 

determined that all of FET’s home– 

market sales constituted a single level of 

trade. 

We found that the export–price level 

of trade was similar to the home–market 

level of trade in terms of selling 

activities. Specifically, the levels of 

expense were similar for the selling 

functions FET provided in both markets. 

Accordingly, we considered the export– 

price level of trade to be similar to the 

home–market level of trade and not at 

a different stage of distribution than the 

home–market level of trade. Therefore, 

we matched export–price sales to sales 

at the same level of trade in the home 

market and no level–of-trade adjustment 

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is 

necessary. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily determine that a dumping 

margin of 2.11 percent exists for FET for 

the period May 1, 2008, through April 

30, 2009. 

Public Comment 

We will disclose the documents 

resulting from our analysis to parties in 

this review within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a 

hearing is requested, the Department 

will notify interested parties of the 

hearing schedule. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results of 

this review. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed not later than 35 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. Parties 

who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs 

in this review are requested to submit 

with each argument (1) a statement of 

the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument with an electronic version 

included. 

We intend to issue the final results of 

this review, including the results of our 

analysis of issues raised in any 

submitted written comments, within 

120 days after publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Although FET 

indicated that it was not the importer of 

record for any of its sales to the United 

States during the period of review, it 

reported the name of the importer of 

record for all of its U.S. sales. Because 

FET reported the entered value for all of 

its U.S. sales and in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated 

an importer–specific assessment rate for 

the merchandise in question by 

aggregating the dumping margins we 

calculated for all U.S. sales to the 

importer and dividing this amount by 

the total entered value of those sales. 

We intend to issue instructions to CBP 

15 days after publication of the final 

results of this review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Clarification). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the period of review produced by 

FET for which it did not know its 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate un–reviewed 

entries at the all–others rate if there is 

no rate for the intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction. For a full discussion of this 

clarification, see Assessment 

Clarification. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of PSF from 

Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication as provided by 

section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the 

cash–deposit rate for FET will be the 

rate established in the final results of 

this administrative review; (2) for 

merchandise exported by manufacturers 

or exporters not covered in this review 

but covered in a prior segment of the 

proceeding, the cash–deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review, a prior review, 

or the original investigation but the 

manufacturer is, the cash–deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; (4) if neither the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Notices 5967 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this review, the cash–deposit 

rate will be 7.31 percent, the all–others 

rate established in Notice of Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea 

and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber From the 

Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 

33807 (May 25, 2000). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 1, 2010. 

Carole A. Showers, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy 

and Negotiations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2593 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List; Additions and 

Deletions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Additions to and Deletions from 

Procurement List. 

SUMMARY: This action adds to the 

Procurement List products and services 

to be furnished by nonprofit agencies 

employing persons who are blind or 

have other severe disabilities, and 

deletes from the Procurement List 

products and services previously 

furnished by such agencies. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 

1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Arlington, Virginia, 22202–3259. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 

603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email 

CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additions 

On 12/4/2009 (74 FR 63732) and 12/ 

11/2009 (74 FR 65758–65760), the 

Committee for Purchase From People 

Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled 

published notices of proposed additions 

to the Procurement List. 

After consideration of the material 

presented to it concerning capability of 

qualified nonprofit agencies to provide 

the products and services and impact of 

the additions on the current or most 

recent contractors, the Committee has 

determined that the products and 

services listed below are suitable for 

procurement by the Federal Government 

under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c and 41 CFR 51– 

2.4. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

I certify that the following action will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The major factors considered for this 

certification were: 

1. The action will not result in any 

additional reporting, recordkeeping or 

other compliance requirements for small 

entities other than the small 

organizations that will furnish the 

products and services to the 

Government. 

2. The action will result in 

authorizing small entities to furnish the 

products and services to the 

Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory 

alternatives which would accomplish 

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in 

connection with the products and 

services proposed for addition to the 

Procurement List. 

End of Certification 

Accordingly, the following products 

and services are added to the 

Procurement List: 

Products 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0382—36′′x72′′ Fingertip Mat, Heavy-duty, Black 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0372—4x6′ Vinyl Loop 

Scraper Mat, Gray 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0377—3x5′ Loop-twist 

Outdoor Scraper Mat, Gray 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0383—3x5′ Wiper/ 

Scraper Mat, Medium Duty, Recycled 

PET, Gray 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0391—3x5′ Indoor 

Wiper Mat, Recycled PET, Gray 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0397—2x3′ Ribbed Vinyl 

Anti-fatigue mat, Gray 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0399—2x3′ Industrial 

deck-plate, Anti-fatigue Mat, Black 

Coverage: A–List for the total government 

requirement as aggregated by the General 

Services Administration 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0398—3x5′ Ribbed Vinyl 

Anti-fatigue mat, Gray 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0400—3x5′ Industrial 

deck-plate, Anti-fatigue Mat, Black 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0402—2x3′ Industrial 

deck-plate, Anti-fatigue Mat, Black 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0403—3x5′ Industrial 

deck-plate, Anti-fatigue Mat, Black 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0411—2x3′ Anti-fatigue 

Mat, Recycled content, Gray 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0412—3x5′ Anti-fatigue 

Mat, Recycled content, Gray 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0384—4x6′ Wiper/ 

Scraper Mat, Medium Duty, Recycled 

PET, Gray 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0378—4x6′ Loop-twist 

Outdoor Scraper Mat, Gray 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0392—4x6′ Indoor 

Wiper Mat, Recycled PET, Gray 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0369—3x5′ Vinyl Loop 

Scraper Mat, Black 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0370—4x6′ Vinyl Loop 

Scraper Mat, Black 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0375—24′′x32′′ Fingertip Mat, Medium-duty, Black 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0376—36′′x72′′ Fingertip Mat, Medium-duty, Black 

NSN: 7220–00–NIB–0381—23′′x32′′ Fingertip Mat, Heavy-duty, Black 

Coverage: B–List for the broad government 

requirement as aggregated by the General 

Services Administration 

NPA: Wiscraft Inc.—Wisconsin Enterprises 

for the Blind, Milwaukee, WI 

Contracting Activity: Federal Acquisition 

Service, GSA/FAS Southwest Supply 

Center (QSDAC), Fort Worth, TX 

Services 

Service Type/Locations: Document 

Destruction Service 

NPA: NISH (Prime Contractor) 

Contracting Activity: Dept Of The Treasury/ 

Internal Revenue Service, Washington, 

DC 

I.R.S. Offices at the following locations: 

2385 CHAMBLEE TUCKER ROAD, 

CHAMBLEE, GA 

J GORDON LOW BLDG: 120 BARNARD ST, 

SAVANNAH, GA 

401 W PEACHTREE ST, ATLANTA, GA 

600 EAST FIRST ST, ROME, GA 

RICHARD B. RUSSELL FB: 75 SPRING ST, 

ATLANTA, GA 

R. G. STEPHENS JR FB: 355 HANCOCK 

AVENUE, ATHENS, GA 

4800 BUFORD HIGHWAY, CHAMBLEE, GA 

NE KOGER: 2888 WOODCOCK BLVD, 

ATLANTA, GA 

SNAPFINGER TECH: 5240 SNAPFINGER 

PARK DR, DECATUR, GA 

2970 BRANDYWINE RD, ATLANTA, GA 

2980 BRANDYWINE RD, ATLANTA, GA 

ATSC TRAINING: 2965 FLOWERS RD, 

CHAMBLEE, GA 

2400 HERODIAN WAY, SMYRNA, GA 

FIRST FEDERAL PLAZA: 777 GLOUCESTER 

ST, BRUNSWICK, GA 

2743 PERIMETER PKWY, AUGUSTA, GA 

233 PEACHTREE ST, ATLANTA, GA 

6655 PEACHTREE DUNWOODY RD NE, 

ATLANTA, GA 

329 OAK STREET, GAINESVILLE, GA 

1008 PROFESSIONAL BLVD., DALTON, GA 

6600 BAY CIRCLE, NORCROSS, GA 

640 NORTH AVENUE, MACON, GA 

33 E. TWOHIG AVE, SAN ANGELO, TX 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES