U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service Administrative Review Branch Alexandria, VA 22302 Brando, Appellant, v. Case Number: C0201985 Retailer Operations Division, Respondent. FINAL AGENCY DECISION The USDA, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) finds that there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the Retailer Operations Division to deny the application of Brando (hereinafter Appellant or Brando), to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). ISSUE The issue accepted for review is whether the Retailer Operations Division took appropriate action, consistent with 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1) in its administration of the SNAP when it denied the application of Brando to participate as an authorized SNAP retailer. AUTHORITY 7 USC 2023 and the implementing regulations at 7 CFR 279.1 provide that A food retailer or wholesale food concern aggrieved by administrative action under 278.1, 278.6 or 278.7... may file a written request for review of the administrative action with FNS. CASE CHRONOLOGY In a letter dated July 31, 2017, the Retailer Operations Division informed Appellant that its application to participate as an authorized retailer in SNAP was denied because it did not meet the definition and eligibility requirements of a retail food store established by federal regulations at Sections 271.2 and 278.1(b)(1). 1
This determination was made as a result of a review of the electronic form FNS-252E Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Application for Stores received by the Retailer Operations Division on July 12, 2017, and a store visit conducted by FNS contracted personnel on July 22, 2017. The determination letter also informed Appellant that the firm could not submit a new application to participate in SNAP for a period of six months as provided in 278.1(k)(2). In a letter postmarked August 11, 2017, ownership appealed the Retailer Operations Division s determination and requested an administrative review of this action. The appeal was granted. STANDARD OF REVIEW In appeals of adverse actions, the Appellant bears the burden of proving by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that the administrative actions should be reversed. That means the 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 The controlling statute in this matter is contained in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended (the Act), 7 USC 2021 and 278 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 278.1(l)(1) establishes the authority upon which the authorization of any firm to participate in SNAP may be withdrawn if it fails to meet established eligibility requirements. 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(7)(e). 7 CFR 271.2 defines a house-to-house trade route as any retail food business operated from a truck, bus, pushcart, or other mobile vehicle. 7 CFR 278.1(b) states, inter alia, In determining whether a firm qualifies for authorization, FNS shall consider all of the following: (1) The nature and extent of the food business conducted by the applicant (i) Retail food store. (A) An establishment or house-to-house trade route shall normally be considered to have food business of a nature and extent that will effectuate the purposes of the program if it sells food for home preparation and consumption and meets one of the following criteria: Offer for sale, on a continuous basis, a variety of qualifying foods in each of the four categories of staple foods... including perishable foods in at least two of the categories (Criterion A); or have more than 50 percent of the total gross retail sales of the establishment... in staple foods (Criterion B). (B) A retail food store must meet eligibility determination factors which may be based on,... visual inspection, sales records, purchase records, counting of stock keeping units, or other inventory or accounting recordkeeping methods that are customary or reasonable in the retail food industry. 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii) states, in relevant part, that in order for a retail store to qualify for authorization under Criterion A, firms shall, (A) Offer for sale and normally display in a public 2
area, qualifying staple food items on a continuous basis, evidenced by having, on any given day of operation, no fewer than three different varieties of food items in each of the four staple food categories. (B) Offer for sale perishable staple food items in at least two staple food categories. Perishable foods are items which are either frozen staple food items or fresh, unrefrigerated or refrigerated staple food items that will spoil or suffer significant deterioration in quality within 2-3 weeks; and (C) Offer a variety of staple foods which means different types of foods, such as apples, cabbage, tomatoes, and squash in the fruit or vegetable staple food category, or milk, cheese, butter and yogurt in the dairy category. 7 CFR 278.l(b)(1)(iv) reads, in part, Ineligible firms. Firms that do not meet the eligibility requirements in this section or that do not effectuate the purpose of the SNAP shall not be eligible for program participation. New applicant firms that are found to be ineligible will be denied authorization and authorized firms will be withdrawn from program participation. 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(vi) (A) provides guidance pertaining to the criteria applicable to all retail firms and states, in relevant part, (A) It is a legitimate retail food outlet. Indicators which may establish to FNS that a firm is a legitimate retail food outlet include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) The firm s marketing structure; as may be determined by factors such as, but not limited to: (i) A retail business license; (ii) The existence of sales tax records documenting retail food sales; and/or separate bookkeeping records; and (2) The way the firm holds itself out to the public as evidenced by factors such as, but not limited to: (i) The layout of the retail sales space; (ii) The use of retail advertisements; (iii) The posting of retail prices; (iv ) Offering specials to attract retail customers; (v) Hours of operation for retail business; (vi) Parking area for retail customers; and (B) It has total annual retail food sales of at least $250,000; or (C) It is a legitimate retail outlet but fails to meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(b) of this section, and not authorizing such a firm would cause hardship to food stamp households. Hardship would occur in any one of the following circumstances: (1) Program recipients would have difficulty in finding authorized firms to accept their coupons for eligible food; (2) Special ethnic foods would not otherwise be available to recipients; or (3) Recipients would be deprived of an opportunity to take advantage of unusually low prices offered by the firm if no other authorized firm in the area offers the same types of food items at comparable prices. 7 CFR 278.1(k) reads, in part, FNS shall deny the application of any firm if it determines that (1) The firm does not qualify for participation in the program as specified in paragraph (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i) of this section... 7 CFR 278.1(k)(2), reads, in relevant part: FNS shall deny the application of any firm if it determines that the firm has failed to meet the eligibility requirements for authorization under Criterion A or Criterion B, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section; or, for co-located wholesale/retail firms, the firm fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section. Any firm that has been denied authorization on these bases shall not be eligible to submit a new application for authorization in the program for a minimum period of six months from the effective date of the denial;... 3
APPELLANT S CONTENTIONS Appellant made the following summarized contentions in its administrative review request postmarked August 11, 2017, in relevant part: Appellant was applying as a delivery route. Appellant is an on-demand delivery store, a convenience store on wheels. The orders come through its website and customers have the options to pay cash upon delivery or pay with their debit card on the website or mobile app. When customers pre-order they would use their card processing terminal upon delivery. Customers will not have the option to pay with their EBT card online. By September 2017, they will have a walk-in as well as delivery. By e-mail on August 17, 2017, Appellant made the following additional summarized contentions, in relevant part: Appellant does not even allow walk-ins. Appellant checked off delivery route on the application for authorization. With its administrative review request, Appellant submitted a copy of its application for authorization wherein it checked off delivery route. The preceding may represent only a brief summary of the Appellant s contentions presented in this matter. However, in reaching a decision, full attention was given to all contentions presented, including any not specifically recapitulated or specifically referenced. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Appellant was denied because the Retailer Operations Division determined that the business did not meet the definition and requirements of a retail food store as set forth in Sections 271.2 and 278.1(b)(1) of the SNAP regulations. The first clause found under Retailer in 7 CFR 278.1, states: An establishment or house-to-house trade route that sells food for home preparation and consumption normally displayed in a public area. Section 278.1(b)(vi)(A) provides additional information about what it means to be a legitimate retail store. The Retailer Operations Division determined that Appellant is primarily an online shopping service with no retail outlet. Additionally, an internet business does not meet the definition of a delivery route/house-to-house trade route per Section 271.2, which is that the business is operated from a truck, bus, pushcart, or other mobile vehicle. In the case of an internet business, the business is operated from a home, office, or warehouse that is not typically publicly accessible. The trucks used are simply for delivery. Appellant explained in its administrative review request that by September 2017, it will offer walkin service as well as delivery. In an e-mail dated August 17, 2017, Appellant states that it does not allow walk-ins. This review is limited to what circumstances existed at the time of the denial action 4
for this firm. At the time of the denial, Appellant was not open to customers and was functioning as an online shopping service. Therefore, the Retailer Operations Division correctly determined that Appellant did not meet the definition and requirements of a retail food store as set forth in Sections 271.2 and 278.1(b)(1) of the SNAP regulations. Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, states in part, [a] retail food store or wholesale food concern that is denied approval to accept and redeem benefits because the store or concern does not meet criteria for approval... may not, for at least 6 months, submit a new application to participate in the program. There is no agency discretion to impose a sanction less than six months when a firm does not meet the aforementioned eligibility requirements for authorization. CONCLUSION The initial decision by the Retailer Operations Division to deny the application of Appellant to participate as a retailer in SNAP is sustained. In accordance with 7 CFR 278.1(k)(2), Appellant shall not be eligible to reapply for a minimum period of six months from July 31, 2017, which is the effective date of the denial. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES Applicable rights to a judicial review of this decision are set forth in 7 USC 2023 and 7 CFR 279.7. If a judicial review is desired, the Complaint, naming the United States as the defendant, must be filed in the U.S. District Court for the district in which the Appellant s owner resides or is engaged in business, or in any court of record of the State having competent jurisdiction. If any Complaint is filed, it must be filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of this Decision. Under the Freedom of Information Act, we are releasing this information in a redacted format as appropriate. FNS will protect, to the extent provided by law, personal information that could constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. MARY KATE KARAGIORGOS September 18, 2017 Administrative Review Officer DATE 5