2731
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices
For the period January through June
1994, the average cost of the TFP was
$459.90 in Alaska, a decrease since last
year, and $615.30 in Hawaii. The
proxies for actual June 1994 TFP costs
were $466.94 in Alaska and $626.50 in
Hawaii. The June 1994 cost of the TFP
was $553.20 in Guam and $482.50 in
the Virgin islands.
The TFP is also the basis for
establishing food stamp allotments.
Food stamp allotments are adjusted
periodically to reflect changes in food
cost levels. Section 3(o)(11) of the Food
Stamp Act of 1977, as amended (7
U.S.C. 2012(o)(11)) provides for an
adjustment on October 1, 1994, based
upon 103 percent of the June 1994 cost
of the TFP for a family of four persons
consisting of a man and woman ages
20–50 and children ages 6–8 and 9–11.
The maximum food stamp benefit or
allotment is paid to households which
have no net income. For households
which have some income, their
allotment is determined by reducing the
maximum allotment for their household
size by 30% of the household’s net
income. To obtain the maximum food
stamp allotment for each household
size, the TFP costs for the four-person
household were increased by 3 percent,
divided by four, multiplied by the
appropriate household size and
economy of scale factor, and the final
result was rounded down to the nearest
dollar.
Because the decrease in the Alaska
TFP would have caused a subsequent
drop in maximum food stamp
allotments, on October 13, 1994, the
President signed into law P.L. 103–345.
This law prohibits the Secretary from
reducing food stamp allotments for
Alaska on October 1, 1994 based on a
TFP cost that was lower than the cost of
the TFP for Alaska in June 1993. This
law is effective September 30, 1994. As
a result of this action, the food stamp
allotments for Alaska published in this
notice are the same as last year’s.
Pursuant to section 3(o)(3) of the Food
Stamp Act (7 U.S.C. 2012(o)(3),
maximum food stamp benefits for Guam
and the Virgin Islands cannot exceed
those in the 50 States and D.C., so they
are based upon the lower of their
respective TFPs or the TFP for rural II
Alaska. In addition, the urban Alaska
allotment is the higher of the allotment
that was in effect in urban areas on
October 1, 1985 or 100.79 percent of the
adjusted Anchorage TFP (see 50 FR
18456, dated May 1, 1984, and 51 FR
16281, dated May 2, 1986).
The following table shows new
allotments for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam,
and the Virgin Islands.
MAXIMUM ALLOTMENT AMOUNTS 1—OCTOBER 1994, AS ADJUSTED
Household size
Urban
Alaska 2
Rural I
Alaska 3
Rural II
Alaska 4
Hawaii
Guam 5
Virgin
Islands 5
1 ........................................................................................
$147
$188
$229
$193
$170
$149
2 ........................................................................................
271
345
420
354
313
273
3 ........................................................................................
388
495
602
508
448
391
4 ........................................................................................
492
628
765
645
569
496
5 ........................................................................................
585
746
908
766
767
590
6 ........................................................................................
702
895
1090
919
811
708
7 ........................................................................................
776
990
1204
1016
897
782
8 ........................................................................................
887
1131
1377
1161
1025
894
Each additional member ...................................................
+111
+141
+172
+145
+128
+112
1 Adjusted to reflect the cost of food in June, adjustments for each household size, economies of scale, a 1.03 percent increase in the TFP and
rounding, except Alaska which by P.L. 103–345 has been held at the 1993–94 levels.
2 These levels are 100.79 percent of the Anchorage TFP, as adjusted.
3 These levels are 128.52 percent of the Anchorage TFP, as adjusted.
4 These levels are 156.42 percent higher than the Anchorage TFP, as adjusted.
5 Adjusted to reflect changes in the cost of food in the 48 States and DC, which correlate with price changes in these areas. Maximum allot-
ments in these areas cannot exceed those in rural II Alaska.
Maximum allotments for the 48 States
and DC were published in a separate
notice in the Federal Register. These
adjustments were announced sooner
than the adjustments for Alaska, Hawaii,
Guam and the Virgin Islands because
the data to accomplish the update for
the 48 States and DC were available
sooner than the data for the other areas
covered by this notice.
(7 U.S.C. 2011–2032)
Dated January 4, 1995.
Ellen Haas,
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 95–637 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–U
RIN: 0584–AB96
Food Stamp Program: Maximum
Allotments for the 48 States and D.C.,
and Income Eligibility Standards and
Deductions for the 48 States and D.C.,
Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands
AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service,
USDA.
ACTION: General notice.
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is
to update for Fiscal Year 1995: (1) the
maximum allotment levels, which are
the basis for determining the maximum
amount of food stamps which
participating households receive, (2) the
gross and net income limits for food
stamp eligibility which certain
households may have, (3) the standard
deduction available to certain
households, and (4) the homeless
household shelter expense. These
adjustments, required by law, take into
account changes in the cost of living
and statutory adjustments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Judith M. Seymour, Supervisor,
Eligibility and Certification Regulations
Section, Certification Policy Branch,
Program Development Division, Food
Stamp Program, Food and Consumer
Service, USDA, Alexandria, Virginia
22302, (703) 305–2496.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Publication
As required by law, State agencies
must implement this action on October
1, 1994 based on advance notice of the
new amounts. In accordance with
regulations published at 47 FR 46485–
46487 (October 19, 1982), annual
statutory adjustments to the maximum
allotment levels, income eligibility
2732
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices
standards, and deductions are issued by
General Notices published in the
Federal Register and not through
rulemaking proceedings.
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and therefore has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
Executive Order 12372
The Food Stamp Program is listed in
the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.551. For the
reasons set forth in the final rule related
notice to 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V (48
FR 29116, June 24, 1983), this program
is excluded from the scope of Executive
Order 12372 which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Ellen Haas, the Under Secretary for
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer
Services, has certified that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The action will increase the
amount of money spent on food through
food stamps. However, this money will
be distributed among the nation’s food
vendors, so the effect on any one vendor
will not be significant.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain reporting
or recordkeeping requirements subject
to approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
Background
Income Eligibility Standards
The eligibility of households for the
Food Stamp Program, except those in
which all members are receiving public
assistance (PA) or supplemental security
income benefits (SSI), is determined by
comparing their incomes to the
appropriate income eligibility standards
(limits). Households containing an
elderly or disabled member need to
have net incomes below the net income
limits, while households which do not
contain an elderly or disabled member
must have net incomes below the net
income limit and gross incomes below
the gross income limit.
Households in which all members are
receiving PA or SSI are categorically
eligible; their incomes do not have to be
below the income limits.
In addition, elderly individuals (and
their spouses) who are unable to prepare
meals because of certain disabilities,
may be considered separate households,
even if they are living and eating with
another household. 7 U.S.C. Sec.
2012(i). The Food Stamp Act limits
separate household status to those
persons who meet both of the following
requirements:
(1) Their own income may not exceed
the net income eligibility standards, and
(2) The income of those with whom
they reside may not exceed 165 percent
of the poverty line.
The net and gross income limits are
derived from the Federal income
poverty guidelines. The net income
limit is 100 percent of the guidelines;
the gross income limit is 130 percent of
the guidelines. The guidelines are
updated annually. Based on that update,
the Food Stamp Program’s income
eligibility standards are updated
annually. The effective date of October
1 is required by the Food Stamp Act.
The revised income eligibility
standards are as follows:
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM OCTOBER 1, 1994–SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
Household size
48 States 1
Alaska
Hawaii
Net Monthly Income Eligibility Standards (100 Percent of Poverty Level)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
$614
$767
$706
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
820
1,025
944
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,027
1,284
1,181
4 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,234
1,542
1,419
5 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,440
1,800
1,656
6 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,647
2,059
1,894
7 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,854
2,317
2,131
8 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2,060
2,575
2,369
Each additional member ..........................................................................................................................
+207
+259
+238
Gross Monthly Income Eligibility Standards (130 Percent of Poverty Level)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
$798
$997
$918
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,066
1,333
1,227
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,335
1,669
1,536
4 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,604
2,005
1,844
5 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,872
2,340
2,153
6 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2,141
2,676
2,462
7 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2,410
3,012
2,771
8 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2,678
3,348
3,079
Each additional member ..........................................................................................................................
+269
+336
+309
Gross Monthly Income Eligibility Standards for Households Where Elderly Disabled Are a Separate Household (165 Percent of Poverty
Level)
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................
$1,012
$1,265
$1,165
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,353
1,692
1,557
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
1,694
2,118
1,949
4 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2,035
2,544
2,341
5 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2,376
2,970
2,733
6 ...............................................................................................................................................................
2,717
3,397
3,124
7 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3,058
3,823
3,516
8 ...............................................................................................................................................................
3,399
4,249
3,908
2733
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM OCTOBER 1, 1994–SEPTEMBER 30, 1995—Continued
Household size
48 States 1
Alaska
Hawaii
Each additional member ..........................................................................................................................
+341
+427
+392
1 Includes District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) and Allotments
The TFP is a plan for the
consumption of foods of different types
(food groups) that households might use
to provide nutritious meals and snacks
for household members. The plan
suggests amounts of food for men,
women, and children of different ages,
and it meets dietary standards. The cost
of the TFP is adjusted monthly to reflect
changes in the costs of the food groups.
The TFP is also the basis for
establishing food stamp allotments.
Nationally, food stamp allotment levels
are adjusted periodically to reflect
changes in food cost levels. Section
3(o)(11) of the Food Stamp Act (7 U.S.C.
Sec. 2012(o)(11)), provides for an
adjustment on October 1, 1994, based
upon 103 percent of the June 1994 cost
of the TFP for a family of four persons
consisting of a man and woman ages
20–50 and children ages 6–8 and 9–11.
In June 1994, the cost of the TFP was
$375.30 in the 48 States and D.C.
To obtain the maximum food stamp
benefit for each household size, June
1994 TFP costs for the four-person
household (of $375.30) were increased
by 3 percent, divided by four,
multiplied by the appropriate
household size and economy of scale
factor, and the final result was rounded
down to the nearest dollar. The
maximum benefit, or allotment, is paid
to households which have no net
income. For households which have
some income, the individual
household’s allotment is determined by
reducing the maximum allotment for the
household’s size by 30 percent of the
individual household’s net income.
The following tables show the new
allotments for the 48 States and D.C.
ALLOTMENT AMOUNTS 1—OCTOBER
1994 AS ADJUSTED
Household size
48 States
and D.C.
1 ................................................
$115
2 ................................................
212
3 ................................................
304
4 ................................................
386
5 ................................................
459
6 ................................................
550
7 ................................................
608
8 ................................................
695
Each additional person .............
+87
1 Adjusted to reflect the cost of food in June,
adjustments for each household size, econo-
mies of scale, a 3 percent increase in the TFP
and rounding.
Minimum Benefit
Pursuant to Section 8(a) of the Food
Stamp Act, the $10 minimum monthly
benefit provided to all one- and two-
person households must be adjusted on
each October 1 to reflect the percentage
change in the TFP for the 12-month
period ending the preceding June, with
the result rounded to the nearest $5. In
order to implement this provision of the
law, the minimum benefit is adjusted
each year as follows: (1) the percentage
change in the TFP from June of the
previous year to June of the current year
(prior to rounding) is calculated; (2) this
percentage change is multiplied by the
previous ‘‘unrounded’’ minimum
benefit to obtain a new unrounded
benefit amount; and (3) the new
unrounded minimum benefit is then
rounded to the nearest $5 in accordance
with the statutory provisions.
The unrounded cost of the TFP was
$364.895 in June 1993 and $375.3158 in
June 1994. The change from June 1993
to June 1994 is 1.028558 percent, which
when multiplied by $11.24974, the
unrounded minimum benefit in Fiscal
Year 1993, results in a new unrounded
minimum benefit of $11.56999.
Rounded to the nearest $5, the
minimum benefit for Fiscal Year 1995 is
$10.
Deductions
Food stamp benefits are calculated on
the basis of an individual household’s
net income. Deductions serve to lower
household net income and thus to
increase household benefits. When a
household’s net income decreases, its
food stamp benefits increase.
Adjustment of the Standard Deduction
Section 5(e) of the Food Stamp Act
provides that, in computing household
income, households shall be allowed a
standard deduction. 7 U.S.C. Sec.
2014(e). Section 5(e) also requires that
the standard deduction be adjusted
periodically. The deduction for the 48
States and D.C. was last adjusted
effective October 1, 1993. Section 5(e)(4)
requires that the adjustment in the level
of the standard deduction shall take into
account changes in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U)
published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) for items other than
food. (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2014(e)(4). The
adjustments are rounded to the nearest
lower dollar pursuant to the
requirements of Section 5(e). There are
separate standard deductions for the 48
States and D.C., Alaska, Hawaii, Guam,
and the Virgin Islands.
The following table shows the
deductions resulting from the last
adjustment, the unrounded results of
this adjustment, and the new deduction
amounts that go into effect on October
1, 1994.
STANDARD DEDUCTIONS FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS
Previous
standard
deductions
(effective
10–1–93)
New
unrounded
numbers
(10–1–94)
Standard
deductions
(effective
10–1–94)
48 States and DC ....................................................................................................................................
$131
$134.53
$134
Alaska .......................................................................................................................................................
223
229.47
229
Hawaii .......................................................................................................................................................
185
189.93
189
Guam ........................................................................................................................................................
262
269.03
269
Virgin Islands ............................................................................................................................................
115
118.70
118
2734
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices
Adjustment of the Shelter Deduction
Section 13912 of the Mickey Leland
Childhood Hunger Relief Act, Chapter 3,
Title XIII, Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103–
66, enacted August 10, 1993, (the
Leland Act) amended section 5(e) of the
Food Stamp Act to change procedures
for adjusting the excess shelter
deduction cap. Prior to the Leland Act,
the excess shelter deduction cap was
adjusted annually based on changes in
the shelter, fuel and utilities
components of housing costs in the CPI–
U published by BLS. The Leland Act,
however, mandated increases in the
shelter cap effective July 1, 1994, and
October 1, 1995, and an elimination of
the cap effective January 1, 1997. The
shelter cap amounts effective for Fiscal
Year 1995 were announced in a General
Notice published in the Federal
Register on March 14, 1994 at 59 FR
11761, and in a proposed rule on Excess
Shelter Expense Limit and Standard
Utility Allowances published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1994.
For the convenience of the reader,
however, we are restating those amounts
below.
MAXIMUM SHELTER DEDUCTIONS FOR
HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT ELDERLY OR
DISABLED MEMBER
[Effective 07–01–94 through 09–30–95]
48 States and DC ...........................
$231
Alaska .............................................
402
Hawaii .............................................
330
Guam ..............................................
280
Virgin Islands ..................................
171
(7 U.S.C. 2011–2032)
Adjustment of the Homeless Household
Shelter Expense
Section 11(e)(3)(E) of the Food Stamp
Act requires the Secretary to prescribe
rules requiring state agencies to develop
standard estimates of the shelter
expenses that may reasonably be
expected to be incurred by households
in which all members are homeless but
which are not receiving free shelter
throughout the month. 7 U.S.C. Sec.
2020(e)(3)(E). In recognition of the
difficulty State agencies may face in
gathering the necessary information to
compute standard shelter estimates for
their States, the Secretary offered a
standard estimate which may be used by
all State agencies in lieu of their own
estimates.
In the Deduction and Disaster
Provisions from the Mickey Leland
Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act
final rule, published at 56 FR 63613
(December 4, 1991), the Department
stated that it would annually adjust the
homeless household shelter expense
each October 1 using the same changes
in the shelter, fuel and utilities
component of the CPI used in indexing
the shelter cap. This year’s homeless
household shelter expense is $139.
Dated: January 4, 1995.
Ellen Haas,
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 95–636 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–U
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–549–813]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination:
Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 11, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Frederick or John Brinkmann,
Office of Antidumping Investigations,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–0186 or
482–5288, respectively.
PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: We
preliminarily determine that canned
pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand is
being, or is likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value, as
provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’)(1994).
The estimated margins of sales at less
than fair value are shown in the
‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of
this notice.
Case History
Since the initiation of this
investigation on June 28, 1994 (59 FR
34408), the following events have
occurred.
On July 25, 1994, the United States
International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
issued an affirmative preliminary injury
determination in this case (see ITC
Investigation No. 731–TA–706).
On August 3, 1994, we named the
following four companies as the
respondents in this investigation: Dole
Food Company, Inc., Dole Packaged
Foods Company, and Dole Thailand,
Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Dole’’); The Thai
Pineapple Public Co., Ltd. (‘‘TIPCO’’);
Siam Agro Industry Pineapple and
Others Co., Ltd. (‘‘SAICO’’); and Malee
Sampran Factory Public Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Malee’’). These four companies
accounted for at least 60 percent of the
exports of CPF to the United States
during the period of investigation (POI)
(January through June 1994) (see
Memorandum from Team to Richard W.
Moreland, dated August 3, 1994).
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.42(b)(1994), we issued antidumping
duty questionnaires to the four
companies on August 5, 1994.
Section A of the Department’s
questionnaire requesting general
information concerning the company’s
corporate structure and business
practices, the merchandise under
investigation that it sells, and the sales
of the merchandise in all markets was
received from the four respondents on
September 2, 1994. We analyzed each
respondent’s home market and third
country sales of the subject merchandise
in accordance with 19 CFR
353.48(a)(1994), and determined that
the home market was not viable for any
of the respondents. Germany was
selected as the appropriate third country
market for all respondents in
accordance with 19 CFR
353.49(b)(1994).
On August 10, 1994, Dole requested
that the POI be modified to coincide
with its fiscal half-year accounting
period. We accepted Dole’s proposal on
August 18, 1994, and modified the POI
for Dole to cover that period from
January 2, 1994, through June 18, 1994
(see Memorandum from Gary Taverman
to Barbara R. Stafford, dated August 18,
1994). The POI was not modified for the
other three respondents.
On August 10 and 24, 1994, Dole
claimed that for purposes of reporting
U.S. sales, it was impossible for the
company to distinguish between its
pineapple grown and canned in
Thailand and its pineapple grown and
canned in the Philippines. Therefore,
Dole requested that it be allowed to
report all of its U.S. sales of CPF,
including those of Philippine origin, for
each product category. Dole then
proposed that an allocation ratio based
on 1993 shipments to the United States
be applied to determine the share of
Thai-origin CPF sold during the POI. By
doing so, Dole stated the Department
could calculate a less than fair value
margin for Dole’s U.S. sales of Thai-
origin merchandise during the POI
based on a ratio of Thai origin to Thai
and Philippine origin merchandise.
In addition, Dole requested that it be
allowed to exclude all sales of 5.5 ounce
cans of crushed pineapple which
accounted for an insignificant volume of
its U.S. sales. Dole claimed that this