U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service Administrative Review Alexandria, VA FINAL AGENCY DECISION

Transcription

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service Administrative Review Alexandria, VA Moe s Grocery, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case Number: C ) Retailer Operations Division, ) ) Respondent. ) ) FINAL AGENCY DECISION It is the decision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that a Permanent Disqualification from participation as an authorized retailer in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 1 was properly imposed against Moe s Grocery (hereinafter Moe s Grocery and/or Appellant ) and its owner of record Mohammad Abu Hashish 2 by the Retailer Operations Division of the FNS. ISSUE The issue accepted for review is whether the Retailer Operations Division took appropriate action, consistent with 7 CFR 278.6(e)(1) in its administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) when it imposed a Permanent Disqualification against Moe s Grocery in a letter dated August 4, AUTHORITY 7 U.S.C and its implementing regulations at 7 CFR provide that [A] food retailer or wholesale food concern aggrieved by administrative action under 278.1, or may file a written request for review of the administrative action with FNS. 1 Section 4001(b) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L ; 122 Stat. 1092) amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 by striking food stamp program and inserting supplemental nutrition assistance program effective October 1, It is noted for the record that the owner s name is recorded as Mohammad Abu Hashish in the FNS records although the typed name and signature on Appellant provided materials indicate that Mohammad is a first name and Abuhashishis the full last name. Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 1

2 CASE CHRONOLOGY In a letter dated June 15, 2016, the Retailer Operations Division informed Appellant that it was in violation of the terms and conditions of the SNAP regulations, 7 CFR , based on Electronic Benefit Transaction (EBT) SNAP benefit transactions considered to establish clear and repetitive patterns of unusual, irregular, and inexplicable SNAP activity for your type of firm. The Retailer Operations Division record documents Appellant responded, providing written materials together with evidentiary documents. Following documented consideration of Appellant replies the Retailer Operations Division advised Appellant of a final determination of permanent disqualification from participation in the SNAP in accordance with 7 CFR 278.6(c) and 278.6(e)(1) for trafficking violations, in a letter dated August 4, 2016, documented to have been delivered to Appellant on August 5, The determination letter also states that the Retailer Operations Division considered Appellant s eligibility for a trafficking civil money penalty (CMP) according to the terms of Section 278.6(i) of the SNAP regulations. The Retailer Operations Division determined that the Appellant was not eligible for the trafficking CMP because the Appellant did not submit timely evidence to demonstrate the firm had established and implemented an effective compliance policy and program to prevent violations of the SNAP. In a letter dated August 9, 2016, received in the offices of the Administrative Review Branch on August 12, 2016, Appellant submitted an appeal of the Retailer Operations Division assessment, requesting an administrative review of the action. The appeal was granted. STANDARD OF REVIEW In appeals of adverse actions, an appellant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, that the administrative actions should be reversed. That means an appellant has the burden of providing relevant evidence which a reasonable mind, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion that the matter asserted is more likely to be true than not true. CONTROLLING LAW AND REGULATIONS The controlling law in this matter is contained in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended (the Act ) 3, 7 U.S.C and promulgated through regulation under Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 4 part 278. In particular CFR 278.6(a) and (e)(1)(i) establish the authority upon which a permanent disqualification may be imposed against a retail food store or wholesale food concern. 3 Effective October 1, 2008, the Food Stamp Act of 1977 was superseded by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended through P.L Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations may be accessed in its entirety via the Internet at Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 2

3 7 U.S.C. 2021(b)(3)(B) states, inter alia: a disqualification under subsection (a) shall be permanent upon the first occasion or any subsequent occasion of a disqualification based on the purchase of coupons or trafficking in coupons or authorization cards by a retail food store or wholesale food concern or a finding of the unauthorized redemption, use, transfer, acquisition, alteration, or possession of EBT cards 7 CFR 278.6(e)(1)(i) states, inter alia: FNS shall disqualify a firm permanently if personnel of the firm have trafficked as defined in CFR states, inter alia: Trafficking means the buying or selling of [SNAP] benefits for cash or consideration other than eligible food 7 CFR states, inter alia: Eligible foods means: Any food or food product intended for human consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco and hot food and hot food products prepared for immediate consumption. 7 CFR 278.6(a) states, inter alia: FNS may disqualify any authorized retail food store if the firm fails to comply with the Food & Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, or this part. Such disqualification shall result from a finding of a violation on the basis of evidence that may include facts established through on-site investigations, inconsistent redemption data, evidence obtained through a transaction report under an electronic benefit transfer system. (Emphasis added.) 7 CFR 278.6(c) states, inter alia: Review of evidence. The letter of charges, the response, and any other information available to FNS shall be reviewed and considered by the appropriate FNS regional office, which shall then issue the determination 7 CFR 278.6(b)(2)(ii), states, inter alia: Firms that request consideration of a civil money penalty in lieu of a permanent disqualification for trafficking shall have the opportunity to submit to FNS information and evidence that establishes the firm s eligibility for a civil money penalty in lieu of a permanent disqualification in accordance with the criteria included in 278.6(i). This information and evidence shall be submitted within 10 days, as specified in 278.6(b)(1). [Emphasis added] 7 CFR 278.6(i), states, inter alia: Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 3

4 FNS may impose a civil money penalty in lieu of a permanent disqualification for trafficking as defined in if the firm timely submits to FNS substantial evidence which demonstrates that the firm had established and implemented an effective compliance policy and program to prevent violations of the Program. [Emphasis added] SUMMARY OF THE CHARGES The Retailer Operations Division materials and the charge letter dated June 15, 2016, reveal that charges were based on an analysis of EBT SNAP benefit transaction data during the six (6) month period of November 2015 through April 2016 and involved two (2) patterns of EBT transaction characteristics indicative of trafficking as follow: Attachment #1 lists multiple SNAP EBT transactions made from individual benefit accounts in unusually short timeframes and. Attachment #2 lists excessively large purchase transactions made from the accounts of SNAP recipients. APPELLANT S CONTENTIONS In response to the letter of charges Appellant provided Retailer Operations Division with the following information/explanations for consideration: Appellant is the only business within a few blocks radius therefore many within the neighborhood do their shopping there. Appellant has been in business for over ten (10) years serving the community without previous issues. A recent visit from a SNAP employee resulted in a five (5) star rating and comments regarding the large inventory for a small store. Antiviolence rallies are held on the corner where Appellant is located and products are purchased towards those activities. SNAP cards are used by multiple family members. Appellant sells more than the average convenience store items including meat and produce. Appellant provided 87 invoices and 50 photographs of Appellant s inventory for consideration. In the August 9, 2016 request for appeal Appellant, indicated that: Enough information had been provided to prove that the purchases listed in the letter of charges were legitimate. Sales can be justified. Photographs of the family who made two (2) purchases in two (2) minutes materials were provided. The neighborhood store is away from main streets and has customers that make repeat purchases during the day. Appellant strives to stock new products at customer request which is then discussed when the customer is checking out, resulting in their adding the item as a separate purchase. Sales at Appellant are not high enough to justify trafficking when non-snap sales are equal or exceed the SNAP sales. Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 4

5 Appellant has had no previous violations, and it is known they have passed undercover visits. Appellant offers meat, a deli and over 15 feet of counter space with food to satisfy customer needs. A USDA employee conducting the yearly inspection indicates Appellant is much improved and has more merchandise than previously. In a subsequent letter, dated August 25, 2016 Appellant provided an envelope with 49 sets of cash register receipts for consideration explained to show multiple purchases within a few minutes noting the time and price ranges as significant. The submission also indicated that: Appellant customers live within a small community where transportation is not required. SNAP cards all look alike and do not include name identification therefore Appellant cannot tell is the same card is being used repeatedly; noting that if it is the customers cannot be turned away. Appellant will lose customers, and eventually the store, if disqualified. The preceding represents only a brief summary of Appellant s contentions in this matter. However, in reaching a decision, full attention and consideration has been given to all contentions presented, including any not specifically recapitulated or specifically referenced herein. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS On review, the investigative materials provided by the Retailer Operations Division, including computer printouts of transaction data available from Federal records, store visit observations, information regarding area competitor firms, and household shopping patterns, were analyzed. With regards to Appellant s contentions in explanation of questionable transactions, the issue in review is whether there is sufficient evidence, through a preponderance of that evidence, that it is more likely true than not true that the questionable transactions were the result of trafficking. Appellant Operations: The record reveals that Appellant was initially authorized as a SNAP retailer effective August 13, 2015 that was supported with a FNS contracted store visit completed on July 27, The record does not show evidence that appellant has been in business for over 10 years without violations; nor is there any indication undercover investigative visits have been completed to Appellant finding no violations. The record reveals that in reaching a disqualification determination, the Retailer Operations Division considered information obtained during a store visit conducted on May 17, FNS contracted personnel visited Moe s Grocery to observe the nature and scope of the firm s operation, stock and facilities. This information was then documented to be used by the Retailer Operations Division to ascertain if there were justifiable explanations for the SNAP transactions identified in the letter of charges that formed patterns indicative of trafficking. The record indicates the May 17, 2016 visit was authorized by Mohammad Abuhashish self-identified as the owner. Appellant is reported to be open seven (7) days per week, from 8am until 9pm on Monday through Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 5

6 Saturday, and from 9am until 5pm on Sunday. Appellant is reported as located in an urban area; within a residential neighborhood; on the first floor of a residential apartment building. The record identifies Moe s Grocery classified as a small grocery store that includes a deli selling made- to-order sandwiches as well as some hot foods (nachos); operating in approximately 1,400 square feet; with the use of one (1) cash register without scanning capability; supported with an adding machine; and, one (1) point-of-sale (POS) device. No out of public view storage was identified. No hand-held shopping baskets or push-cart shopping basket were identified as available to support the delivery of items for purchase to the limited check out area. The checkout area is seen in the store visit photographs to include a small area located over a glass display case with an area of approximately 3 feet by 3 feet available on which to place items for checkout. The inventory at the time of the May 17, 2016 store visit is documented to include: Five (5) varieties of dairy products consisting of two (2) containers of sour cream/yogurt; three (3) units of butter; between six (6) and 20 units of milk/cream; and more than 20 units of cheese and ice cream. The inventory documents do not identify any infant formula. Fifteen (15) varieties of fruits and vegetables with two (2) varieties of fresh/ frozen/ refrigerated foods including 100 percent fruit juices; a small box with +-24 potatoes and approximately six (6) tomatoes (located in the deli case). The fruits and vegetable staple foods included mostly canned goods in varying amounts per type. Six (6) of the varieties were identified to include more than 20 units each. Eight (8) varieties of breads and cereals were identified including mostly snack foods. Six (6) varieties of meat, poultry and fish products were identified, with the fresh/ frozen/ refrigerated variety to include deli meats sold by weight as well as in made-to-order sandwiches. Appellant contends in the review request material provided both to Retailer Operations Division and on appeal that the USDA/SNAP employee who conducted the recent visit gave the business 5 stars and stated we carried a large amount of items for a small store. It is important to clarify that store visits are conducted for USDA/FNS by employees of a contractor who has won the bid to provide the review services. These individuals are not employees of the US Government. Notably the store visit materials presumably referenced by Appellant, conducted on May 17, 2016, did not include any contractor annotations regarding inventory at Moe s Grocery. Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 6

7 Photos from the May 17, 2016 store visit are presented below: Store front Photo #4 Building location Photo #29 General Store Overview Photo #22 Checkout Area Photo #34 Deli Case Far Left Photo #30 Deli Case Center Left Photo #18 Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 7

8 Deli Case Center Right Photo #23 Deli Case far right Photo #6 Frozen Foods Photo #28 (right side of ice cream freezer) Nachos (hot food), automotive products, de-icing salt Photo #11 Review of the 50 images provided by Appellant for consideration identified photographs that closely correlated to the ones included with the May 17, 2016 contracted store visit materials. Notable exceptions are 1) increased stock; and 2) photographs of items not seen in the contracted store visit materials. The four (4) photographs of items not included in the contracted store visit materials Include: 1) Two (2) advertised special food bundles: Bundle #1 priced at $98.99 is listed to include: two (2) gallons of milk; two (2) pound of American cheese; five (5) pounds cut bacon; three (3) packages parker house; three (3) boxes of cereal; two (2) loaves of bread; one (1) bag 20 pound rice; two (2) dozen eggs; three (3) pounds ground beef; five (5) pounds cut meat; and, two (2) pounds of potatoes. Bundle #2 priced at $40.99 is listed to include: one (1) gallon milk; two (2) pounds American cheese; three (3) pounds slab cut bacon; three (3) packs of Parkerhouse sausage; one (1) box of cereal; one (1) loaf of bread; two (2) dozen eggs; and, two (2) pounds of ham. 2) A volume of infant formula; 3) Bulk rice; and Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 8

9 4) What appear to be large cuts of frozen meat (ham). Appellant provided no evidence of unique or distinct stock to support the contentions that new products are provided at customer s request. Comparison Stores: Retailer Operations Division reports that there are 15 SNAP authorized within a one-mile radius of Appellant including five (5) superstores; two (2) supermarkets; one (1) medium grocery store; and, seven (7) small grocery stores. Visual review of the map identifying Appellant location reveals that with the exception of a national supermarket/superstore chain store, Moe s Grocery appears to be located in a mostly residential area. The other 14 SNAP authorized small grocery stores within a one-mile radius are noted to be located across main street thoroughfares. This finding is supported by the FNS Retailer Locator webpage ( which reflect that there are approximately 25 SNAP authorized retailers within one (1) mile of Appellant. Appellant s contention that it is the only business within a few blocks radius prompting many within the neighborhood do their shopping there is not supported with the evidence provided by Retailer Operations Division which indicates alternative SNAP authorized firms are indeed available within a one- mile radius. Appellant s inventory is not noted to include specialty or merchandise that caters to a particular culture or ethnicity. In considering the patterns of SNAP transactions identified in the letter of charges Retailer Operations Division compared information from alternative small grocery stores in the State of Illinois as well as two (2) similar small grocery stores located within the one-mile radius from Appellant. 7 USC 2018 (b)(7)(e): The total SNAP redemptions and number of transaction of Appellant are noted in the comparisons to be similar to the typical SNAP redemptions of small grocery stores in the State, with a resulting 39 cent difference in average transaction. Where there is a slightly more noticeable difference is in the average transaction dollar amount at the two (2) comparison small grocery stores located in the area. Review of Charges: Attachment #1: Multiple SNAP EBT transactions made from individual benefit accounts in unusually short timeframes. Further, Retailer Operations Division documents that the suspicious transactions in the identified pattern occurred only 36 times at one (1) of the two (2) comparison small grocery stores within a onemile radius of Appellant firm; and, did not occur at all at the other comparison small grocery store Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 9

10 within a one-mile radius of Appellant firm. At 113 transactions Appellant has an occurrence that is almost seven (7) times the number of similar transactions at the one (1) comparison small grocery store. In the instant case Retailer Operations Division indicates that the 34 households identified in the Attachment #1 conducted transactions with alternative SNAP authorized retailers, some of which were located within a one-mile radius of Appellant firm. On review it is noted that seven (7) of the identified households repeated the suspicious pattern twice; two (2) households repeated the suspicious pattern three (3) times; and, one (1) household repeated the suspicious pattern four (4) times. Appellant contends that the reason for multiple transactions from individual accounts in short times frames is that multiple family members from the same household use the same card. The one (1) transaction set that is identified to have been completed in less than four (4) minutes is contended to be a young family that completed the transactions for unknown reasons. Appellant provided two (2) photographs of a young family making purchases, however, whether or not the photographs were from the date and time of the two (2) repeated transactions listed in the attachment materials as having occurred in less than four (4) minutes is not verifiable with the materials provided. Appellant also contends that because all the SNAP EBT cards look alike, and are not identified by name, it is possible that cards can be repeatedly used without the knowledge of Appellant. Further, Appellant appropriately notes that there would be no reason for recognized repeated transactions to be turned away. In supplemental materials dated August 25, 2016 Appellant provided 49 sets, with two (2) to five (5) transactions per set, of cash register receipts for 33 households representing what is characterized by Appellant as showing multiple purchases within a few minutes. The materials include: 14 transactions dated between May 16, 2016 and May 29, 2016; 16 sets dated between June 7, 2016 and June 30, 2016; 19 sets dated between July 3, 2016 and July 16, 2016; Amounts between 50 cents and $100.88; 11 of the sets involved transaction amounts over $20; Eight (8) sets involved transaction amounts over $50; and, Four (4) sets involved transactions amounts totaling over $100. The Appellant materials provided no information on the type of items purchased, simply recording that EBT transactions occurred; therefore, there is no conclusive evidence that the materials provided represent legitimate SNAP transactions that refute the information provided in Attachment #1 to the letter of charges. On review it is not found reasonable to consider that a majority of the transactions, such as those included in the Attachment #1 charge letter materials are supported by the inventory and operational Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 10

11 setup of Appellant. There are no hand-held or push-carts or baskets identified at the documented store visit therefore the arrangement for transporting foods, with costs to support the transaction amounts, to the check-out area is undefined. Attachment #2: Excessively large purchase transactions made from the accounts of SNAP recipients. The average transaction at Appellant is 39 cents more than the typical small grocery store in Illinois; and $2.15 and $5.16 more than the two (2) comparator small grocery stores identified by Retailer Operations Division demonstrating similar operational functions such as single cash registers; none or limited baskets or carts; and, limited area for the placement of merchandise for purchase. Appellant materials cite that the transactions identified in Attachment #2 are explained with the availability of items such as meat and produce; as well as noting that anti-violence rallies are held in the area where Moe s Grocery is located resulting in purchases being made for those events. Included in the 50 photographs provided for consideration by Appellant was information that food bundles, high priced infant formula, rice in 20, 25, and 50 pound packages; and large cuts of frozen meats. These items could not be verified as available through review of photographs of contracted store visit materials included in the record from either the July 25, 2015 initial authorization visit or the previously referenced May 17, 2016 visit. Appellant provided no evidence of any purchases related to the anti-violence rallies that are mentioned in reply to the letter of charges. Invoice Analysis: Retailer Operations Division documents that the response to the letter of charges from Appellant included 87 invoices and receipts from various merchants. Fifty-five (55) of the 87 invoices and receipts were outside of the review period and therefore were not considered in the analysis. 7 USC 2018 (b)(7)(e).... Therefore, although Appellant s responses can be accepted as reasonable explanations for some of the transactions identified in the June 15, 2016 letter of charges; they do not present grounds for the elimination of the current charges of violations of for mitigating the impact of those charges. Household Analysis: Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 11

12 Retailer Operations Division documents the analysis of three (3) randomly selected households identified as having conducted suspicious SNAP transactions at Appellant firm to the shopping patterns of those same households at alternative SNAP retailers during the focus period. Retailer Operations Division documents that the shopping histories of households 7 U.S.C (b)(6) & (b)(7)(c) finding that:.... Denial of Trafficking Charges: Mr. Abuhashish, Appellant s owner denies trafficking indicating that he believes he has provided information to prove that Appellant sales are justified. Mr. Abuhashish also indicates that: Moe s Grocery does not make enough income to justify SNAP trafficking; his business is the sole source of income for himself and his family and he would not jeopardize that means of support; he believes Moe s Grocery has passed FNS undercover investigations in the past; Moe s Grocery derives sales from non-snap business that is equal to or more than the SNAP sales; Disqualification of Appellant will impact the small community where no transportation is available and result in a loss of customers and eventually a loss of Appellant. Although Appellant s owner denies the trafficking allegations, this review encompasses and documents the examination of the primary and relevant information in this case, the purpose of which is, as noted above, to determine whether the Appellant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the permanent disqualification should be reversed. In this case, therefore, if the Appellant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that trafficking did not occur in the Appellant s firm, then trafficking will be considered not to have occurred and the disqualification reversed. If this is not demonstrated the case is to be sustained. Assertions that the firm has not violated program rules, by themselves and without supporting evidence and rationale, do not constitute valid grounds for dismissal of the current charges of violations or for mitigating their impact. With regard to Appellant s contention that a disqualification will cause economic hardship to the firm, it is recognized that some degree of economic hardship is a likely consequence whenever a Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 12

13 store is disqualified from participation in SNAP. To allow store ownership to be excused from assessed administrative penalties based on purported economic hardship to the firm would render virtually meaningless the enforcement provisions of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and the enforcement efforts of the USDA. Moreover, giving special consideration to economic hardship to the firm would forsake fairness and equity, not only to competing stores and other participating retailers who are complying fully with program regulations, but also to those retailers who have been disqualified from the program in the past for similar violations. Therefore, Appellant s contention that the firm may incur economic hardship based on the assessment of an administrative penalty does not provide any valid basis for dismissing the charges or for mitigating the penalty imposed. Summary Findings: The data reflected in the letter of charges dated June 15, 2016 is the result of information gained primarily from the Anti-Fraud Locator using Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Retailer Transactions (ALERT) system which is a fraud detection, decision support system designed to monitor and track electronically conducted retail transactions completed by SNAP recipients in authorized meal program and food retailer locations. The ALERT System facilitates management of the program by providing transaction-level information to Federal personnel charged with the responsibility of SNAP retailer management and compliance. The system uses pre-defined criteria or patterns for potential fraud detection. Preformatted reports provide information on those stores and transactions meeting the criteria. ALERT supports both online analysis and online queries and reports for use by FNS. The system does not make the final determination, instead is used by Retailer Operations Division to develop information and evidence for consideration and an ultimate decision. In the instant case, based on the available empirical data, and in the absence of any reasonable evidence supported explanations for the anomalous transaction patterns, a conclusion can be drawn, through a preponderance of evidence that the majority of the unusual, irregular, and inexplicable transactions and patterns cited in the letter of charges evidence trafficking as the most likely explanation. CIVIL MONEY PENALTY As previously indicated the August 4, 2016 determination letter advised Appellant of the ineligibility for consideration for a trafficking civil money penalty (CMP) according to the terms of Section 278.6(i) of the SNAP regulations. The letter of charges dated June 15, 2016 advised Appellant that documentation of eligibility for that alternative sanction was to be provided within 10 days. The regulations specify that such documentation must, in part, establish that there was an effective compliance policy and training program and that both were in effect and implemented prior to the occurrence of violations. The record indicates that no information was provided by Appellant for consideration and a review of the administrative record finds no evidence of materials or information timely provided. Therefore, on review the Retailer Operations Division s determination that Appellant firm is ineligible for the imposition of civil money penalties in lieu of disqualification is affirmed. Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 13

14 CONCLUSION The Retailer Operations Division analysis of Appellant s EBT transaction records, upon which charges of violations are based, together with observations made during the contracted store visits provide substantial evidence that questionable transactions during the focus period have characteristics that are not consistent with legitimate sales of eligible food to SNAP customers at a store of the nature and scope as described in the preceding materials. Rather, the characteristics are indicative of illegal trafficking in program benefits. Based on a review of the evidence in this case, it is more likely true than not true that program violations did, in fact, occur as charged and that the Retailer Operations Division has provided substantial evidence of trafficking violations; and, the decision to impose a permanent disqualification from participation in the SNAP against Moe s Grocery is sustained. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES Applicable rights to a judicial review of this decision are set forth in 7 U.S.C and 7 CFR If a judicial review is desired, the complaint must be filed in the U.S. District Court for the district in which Appellant s owner resides, is engaged in business, or in any court of record of the State having competent jurisdiction. This complaint, naming the United States as the defendant, must be filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of this decision. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. If such a request is received, FNS will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personal information that if released could constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. NANCY BACA-STEPAN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OFFICER December 13, 2016 DATE Moe s Grocery Final Agency Decision Page 14