[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3697-3704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1114]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

National Institute of Food and Agriculture


Solicitation of Nomination of Veterinary Shortage Situations for 
the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP)

AGENCY: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and solicitation for nominations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is 
soliciting nominations for veterinary service shortage situations for 
the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP; [74 FR 32788-
32798]), as authorized under the National Veterinary Medical Services 
Act (NVMSA), 7 U.S.C. 3151a. This Notice initiates a 45-day nomination 
solicitation period and prescribes the procedures and criteria to be 
used by State, Insular Area, DC and Federal Lands (hereafter referred 
to as State(s)) Animal Health Officials (SAHO) in order to nominate 
veterinary shortage situations. All States are eligible to submit 
nominations, up to the maximum indicated for each State in this notice. 
NIFA is conducting this solicitation of veterinary shortage situation 
nominations under previously approved information collection (OMB 
Control Number 0524-0046).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Sherman; National Program Leader, 
Veterinary Science; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; U.S. 
Department of Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; 
Washington, DC 20250-2220; Voice: 202-401-4952; Fax: 202-401-6156; E-
mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    In recent years, a number of studies have been conducted to 
investigate national veterinary workforce needs in different veterinary 
sectors including private practice, public practice (local, State, and 
Federal service), military service, research, public health, food 
safety and other specialty disciplines. Major studies include two 
National Academies of Science (NAS) reports, Animal Health at the 
Crossroads: Preventing, Detecting, and Diagnosing Animal Diseases and 
Critical Needs for Research in Veterinary Science, a third pending NAS 
committee report, Assessing the Current and Future Workforce Needs in 
Veterinary Medicine, which is currently under final review, and a 2009 
GAO Federal Veterinary Work Force report, VETERINARIAN WORKFORCE: 
Actions Are Needed to Ensure Sufficient Capacity for Protecting Public 
and Animal Health. These studies, taken together with a number of 
smaller assessments of veterinary workforce needs conducted by various 
professional associations, indicate shortages of veterinarians exist in 
nearly all sectors and many of these shortages will worsen without 
enhancement of resources, facilities, incentives, and novel recruiting 
and educational strategies.
    A landmark series of three peer-reviewed studies published in 2007 
in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA), 
and sponsored by the Food Supply Veterinary Medicine Coalition (http://www.avma.org/fsvm/recognition.asp), gave considerable attention to the 
growing shortage of food supply veterinarians, the causes of shortages 
in this sector, and the consequences to the US food safety 
infrastructure and to the general public if this trend continues to 
worsen. Food supply veterinary medicine embraces a broad array of 
veterinary professional activities, specialties and responsibilities, 
and is defined as the full range of veterinary medical practices 
contributing to the production of a safe and wholesome food supply and 
to animal, human, and environmental health. However, the privately 
practicing food animal veterinary practitioner population within the US 
is, numerically, the largest, and arguably the most important single 
component of the food supply veterinary medical sector. Food animal 
veterinarians, working closely with livestock producers and State and 
Federal officials, constitute the first line of defense against spread 
of endemic and zoonotic diseases, introduction of

[[Page 3698]]

high consequence foreign animal diseases, and other threats to the 
health and wellbeing of both animals and humans that consume animal 
products.
    Among the most alarming findings of the Coalition-sponsored studies 
was objective confirmation that insufficient numbers of veterinary 
students are selecting food supply veterinary medical careers. This 
development has led both to current shortages and to projections for 
worsening shortages over the next 10 years. While there were many 
reasons students listed for opting not to choose a career in food 
animal practice or other food supply veterinary sectors, chief among 
the reasons was concern over burdensome educational debt. According to 
a survey of veterinary medical graduates conducted by the American 
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) in the spring of 2009, the 
average educational debt for students graduating from veterinary school 
is approximately $130,000. Such debt loads incentivize students to 
select other veterinary careers, such as companion animal medicine, 
which tend to be more financially lucrative and, therefore, enable 
students to more quickly repay their outstanding educational loans. 
Furthermore, when this issue was studied in the Coalition report from 
the perspective of identifying solutions to this workforce imbalance, 
panelists were asked to rate 18 different strategies for addressing 
shortages. Responses from the panelists overwhelmingly showed that 
student debt repayment and scholarship programs were the most important 
strategies in addressing future shortages (JAVMA 229:57-69).

Public Comments and Solicitation Notice Changes in Response

    On July 9, 2009, NIFA published a Federal Register Notice [74 FR 
32788-32798] with request for comment on the VMLRP Interim Rule, which 
included, in part, general procedures for designation of veterinary 
shortage situations.
    NIFA invited public comment on the VMLRP Interim Rule, which 
included a description of the process for solicitation of nomination of 
veterinary shortage situations. NIFA received seven sets of comments 
relating to the nomination solicitation process.
    Comment: Three commentors suggested that the State Animal Health 
Official be required to consult with the State Veterinary Association 
and other interested parties within the State when identifying 
underserved areas within a State.
    NIFA Response: We strongly recommend that State Animal Health 
Officials involve other leading animal health experts in the nomination 
process as they identify underserved areas within their respective 
States.
    Comment: One commentor expressed concern that low density 
agricultural areas will be regarded as less important than areas of 
heavily concentrated agriculture.
    Comment: One commentor recommended that representatives of Federal 
agencies be included on an official review panel.
    NIFA Response: NIFA will take these comments into consideration as 
it develops the solicitation for nominations for veterinarian shortage 
situations and implements the review panel.
    Comment: One commentor urged USDA to examine the feasibility of 
establishing an indexing system whereby each shortage situation that is 
designated is awarded a weighted score for severity of shortage.
    NIFA Response: As with other review processes conducted by NIFA, 
the review panel will evaluate the composite qualitative and 
quantitative arguments presented in the submitted nomination packages 
against criteria described elsewhere in this notice. The panel will 
classify each shortage situation as either ``Recommended for 
designation'' or ``Not recommended for designation''.
    Comment: One commentor suggested that solicitation notices be 
published on an annual basis instead of a biennial basis. Another 
commentor requested clarification on the frequency of the need to apply 
for the designation of shortage areas and the need to reassess a 
designation once it is filled by a veterinarian enrolled in the VMLRP.
    NIFA Response: NIFA presumes that, over time, the shortage 
situation priorities of a State will change due to veterinarians 
relocating to fill critical areas designated by the VMLRP. NIFA will 
also be mindful of spontaneous shifts in perceived threats to animal 
health in time and space. To address changing conditions, NIFA program 
staff will assess the relative demand for reprioritization of shortage 
situation distribution within the States on an annual basis. However, 
NIFA reserves the right to conduct this solicitation on a biennial 
basis to save administrative costs and to adhere to the aggressive 
annual program schedule and/or to respond to funding fluctuations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements imposed by the implementation of these 
guidelines have been approved by OMB Control Number 0524-0046.

List of Subjects in Guidelines for Veterinary Shortage Situation 
Nominations

I. Preface and Authority
II. Nomination of Veterinary Shortage Situations
    A. General
    1. Eligible Shortage Situations
    2. Authorized Respondents and Use of Consultation
    3. Rationale for Capping Nominations and State Allocation Method
    4. State Allocation of Nominations
    5. Period Covered
    6. Submission and Due Date
    7. Definitions
    B. Nomination Form and Description of Fields
    1. Access to Nomination Form
    2. Physical Location of Shortage Area or Position
    3. Type I Shortage
    4. Type II Shortage
    5. Type III Shortage
    6. Written Response Sections
    C. NIFA Review of Shortage Situation Nominations
    1. Review Panel Composition and Process
    2. Review Criteria
    Guidelines for Veterinary Shortage Situation Nominations

I. Preface and Authority

    In January 2003, the National Veterinary Medical Service Act 
(NVMSA) was passed into law adding section 1415A to the National 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997 
(NARETPA). This law established a new Veterinary Medicine Loan 
Repayment Program (7 U.S.C. 3151a) authorizing the Secretary of 
Agriculture to carry out a program of entering into agreements with 
veterinarians under which they agree to provide veterinary services in 
veterinarian shortage situations. In November 2005, the Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-97) appropriated $495,000 for 
CSREES to implement the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program and 
represented the first time funds had been appropriated for this 
program. In February 2007, the Revised Continuing Appropriations 
Resolution, 2007 (Pub. L. 110-5) appropriated an additional $495,000 to 
CSREES for support of the program, and in December 2007, the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 appropriated an additional 
$868,875 to CSREES for support of this program. On

[[Page 3699]]

March 11, 2009, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8) 
was enacted, providing an additional $2,950,000, for the VMLRP. In 
October 2009, the President signed into law, Public Law 111-80, 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010, which appropriated 
$4,800,000 for the VMLRP. Consequently, as of the publication of this 
Notice, there is a cumulative total of approximately $9.6 million 
available for NIFA to administer this program. Funding for future years 
will be based on annual appropriations and balances carried forward 
from prior years, and may vary from year to year.
    Section 7105 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, 
Public Law 110-246, (FCEA) amended section 1415A to revise the 
determination of veterinarian shortage situations to consider (1) 
geographical areas that the Secretary determines have a shortage of 
veterinarians; and (2) areas of veterinary practice that the Secretary 
determines have a shortage of veterinarians, such as food animal 
medicine, public health, epidemiology, and food safety. This section 
also added that priority should be given to agreements with 
veterinarians for the practice of food animal medicine in veterinarian 
shortage situations.
    NARETPA section 1415A requires the Secretary, when determining the 
amount of repayment for a year of service by a veterinarian to consider 
the ability of USDA to maximize the number of agreements from the 
amounts appropriated and to provide an incentive to serve in veterinary 
service shortage areas with the greatest need. This section also 
provides that loan repayments may consist of payments of the principal 
and interest on government and commercial loans received by the 
individual for attendance of the individual at an accredited college of 
veterinary medicine resulting in a degree of Doctor of Veterinary 
Medicine or the equivalent. This program is not authorized to provide 
repayments for any government or commercial loans incurred during the 
pursuit of another degree, such as an associate or bachelor degree.
    The Secretary delegated the authority to carry out this program to 
NIFA.
    Pursuant to the requirements enacted in the NVMSA of 2004 (as 
revised), and the implementing regulation for this Act, Part 3431 
Subpart A of the VMLRP Interim Rule [74 FR 32788-32798], the National 
Institute of Food and Agriculture hereby implements Guidelines for the 
solicitation of nomination of veterinary shortage situations from 
authorized State Animal Health Officials:

II. Nomination of Veterinary Shortage Situations

A. General

1. Eligible Shortage Situations
    Section 1415A of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Teaching Policy Act of 1997 (NARETPA), as amended and revised by 
Section 7105 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public 
Law 110-246, (FCEA) directs determination of veterinarian shortage 
situations to consider (1) geographical areas that the Secretary 
determines have a shortage of veterinarians; and (2) areas of 
veterinary practice that the Secretary determines have a shortage of 
veterinarians, such as food animal medicine, public health, 
epidemiology, and food safety. This section also added that priority 
should be given to agreements with veterinarians for the practice of 
food animal medicine in veterinarian shortage situations.
    While the NVMSA (as amended) specifies priority be given to food 
animal medicine shortage situations, and that consideration also be 
given to specialty areas such as public health, epidemiology and food 
safety, the Act does not identify any areas of veterinary practice as 
ineligible. Accordingly, all nominated veterinary shortage situations 
will be considered eligible for submission. However, the 
competitiveness of submitted nominations, upon evaluation by the review 
panel, will reflect the intent of Congress that priority be given to 
certain types of veterinary service shortage situations. NIFA therefore 
anticipates that in the first year, and perhaps subsequent early years 
of program implementation, the most competitive nominations will be 
those directly addressing food supply veterinary medicine shortage 
situations.
    NIFA has adopted definitions of the practice of veterinary medicine 
and the practice of food supply medicine that are broadly inclusive of 
the critical roles veterinarians serve in both public practice and 
private practice situations. Nominations describing either public or 
private practice veterinary shortage situations will therefore be 
eligible for submission. However, NIFA interprets that Congressional 
intent is to give priority to the private practice of food animal 
medicine. NIFA is grateful to the Association of American Veterinary 
Medical Colleges (AAVMC), the American Veterinary Medical Association 
(AVMA), and other stakeholders for their recommendations regarding the 
appropriate balance of program emphasis on public and private practice 
shortage situations. NIFA will seek to achieve a final distribution of 
approximately 90 percent of nominations (and eventual agreements) that 
are geographic, private practice, food animal veterinary medicine 
shortage situations, and approximately 10 percent of nominations that 
reflect public practice shortage situations.
2. State Respondents and Use of Consultation
    Respondents on behalf of each State include the chief State Animal 
Health Official (SAHO), as duly authorized by the Governor or his 
designee in each State. The SAHO Nominators are requested to submit to 
[email protected] a Form--NIFA 2009-0001, VMLRP Veterinarian Shortage 
Situation Nomination, which is available in the Shortage Situations 
section for the VMLRP on the NIFA Web site at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp. One form must be submitted for each nominated shortage 
situation. NIFA strongly encourages the SAHO to involve leading health 
animal experts in the State in the identification and prioritization of 
shortage situation nominations.
3. Rationale for Capping Nominations and State Allocation Method
    In its consideration of fair, transparent and objective approaches 
to solicitation of shortage area nominations, NIFA evaluated three 
alternative strategies before deciding on the appropriate strategy. The 
first option considered was to impose no limits on the number of 
nominations submitted. The second was to allow each State the same 
number of nominations. The third (eventually selected) was to 
differentially cap the number of nominations per State based on 
defensible and intuitive criteria.
    The first option, providing no limits to the number of nominations 
per State, is fair to the extent that each State and insular area has 
equal opportunity to nominate as many situations as desired. However, 
funding for the VMLRP is limited (relative to anticipated demand) and 
so allowing potentially high and disproportionate submission rates of 
nominations could both unnecessarily burden the nominators and the 
reviewers with a potential avalanche of nominations and dilute highest 
need situations with lower-level need situations. Moreover, NIFA 
believes that the distribution of opportunity under this program (i.e., 
distribution of mapped shortage situations resulting from the 
nomination solicitation and

[[Page 3700]]

review process) should roughly reflect the national distribution of 
veterinary service demand. By not capping nominations based on some 
objective criteria, it is likely there would be no correlation between 
the mapped pattern and density of certified shortage situations and the 
actual pattern and density of need. This in turn could undermine 
confidence in the program with Congress, the public, and other 
stakeholders.
    The second option, limiting all States and insular areas to the 
same number of nominations suffers from some of the same disadvantages 
as option one. It has the benefit in that it controls the 
administrative burden on both the SAHO and the nomination review 
process. However, like option one, there would be no correlation 
between the mapped pattern of certified shortage situations and the 
actual pattern of need. For example, Guam and Rhode Island would be 
allowed to submit the same number of nominations as Texas and Nebraska, 
despite the large difference in the sizes of their respective animal 
agriculture industries and rural land areas requiring veterinary 
services.
    The third option, to cap the number of nominations in relation to 
major parameters correlating with veterinary service demand, achieves 
the goals both of practical control over the administrative burden to 
the States and NIFA, and of achieving a mapped pattern of certified 
nominations that approximates the theoretical actual shortage 
distribution. In addition, this method limits dilution of highest need 
areas with lower-level need areas. The disadvantage of this strategy is 
that there is no validated, unbiased, direct measure of veterinary 
shortage and so it is necessary to employ robust surrogate parameters 
that correlate with the hypothetical cumulative relative need for each 
State in comparison to other States. Such parameters exist and the 
degree to which they are not perfect measures of veterinary need is 
compensated for by generously assigning nomination allowances based on 
State rank for each parameter.
    In the absence of a validated unbiased direct measure of relative 
veterinary service need or risk for each State and insular area, the 
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) provided NIFA with 
reliable, publically accessible, high quality, unbiased data that 
correlate with demand for food supply veterinary service. NIFA has 
consulted with NASS and determined that NASS State-level variables most 
strongly correlated with food supply veterinary service need are 
``Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)'' and ``Land Area'' 
(acres). The ``Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)'' 
variable broadly predicts veterinary service need in a State because 
this is a normalized (to cash value) estimate of the extent of (live) 
animal agriculture in the State. The State ``land area'' variable 
predicts veterinary service need because there is positive correlation 
between State land area, percent of State area classified as rural and 
the percent of land devoted to actual or potential livestock 
production. Importantly, land area is also directly correlated with the 
number of veterinarians needed to provide veterinary services in a 
State because of the practical limitations relating to the maximum 
radius of a standard veterinary service area; due to fuel and other 
cost factors, the maximum radius a veterinarian operating a mobile 
veterinary service can cover is approximately 60 miles, which roughly 
corresponds to two or three contiguous counties of average size.
    NIFA recognizes that that these two NASS variables are not perfect 
predictors of veterinary service demand. However, for the purpose of 
fairly and transparently estimating veterinary service demand, NIFA 
believes these two unbiased composite variables account for a 
significant proportion of several of the most relevant factors 
influencing veterinary service need and risk. To further ensure 
fairness and equitability, NIFA is employing these variables in a 
straightforward, transparent and liberal manner that ensures every 
State and insular area is eligible for at least one nomination and that 
all States receive a generous apportionment of nominations, relative to 
their geographic size and size of agricultural animal industries.
    Following this rationale, the Secretary is specifying the maximum 
number of nominations per State in order to (1) assure distribution of 
designated shortage areas in a manner generally reflective of the 
differential overall demand for food supply veterinary services in 
different States, (2) ensure a practical balance between the number of 
potential awardees and the available shortage situations, (3) assure 
the number of shortage situation nominations submitted fosters emphasis 
on selection by nominators and applicants of the highest priority need 
areas, and (4) provide practical and proportional limitations of the 
administrative burden borne by SAHOs preparing nominations, and by 
panelists serving on the NIFA nominations review panel.
    Furthermore, instituting a limit on the number of nominations is 
consistent with language in the Interim Rule stating, ``The 
solicitation may specify the maximum number of nominations that may be 
submitted by each State animal health official.''
4. State Allocation of Nominations
    For any given program year, the number of designated shortage 
situations per State will be limited by NIFA, and this will in turn 
impact the number of new nominations a State may submit each time NIFA 
solicits shortage nominations. In the first year of the program NIFA 
will accept a number of nominations equivalent to the allowable number 
of designated shortage areas. In subsequent years, when NIFA may 
solicit additional nominations, the number of nominations requested 
from each State will be the maximum number of designated shortage 
situations for the State minus the number of shortage situations filled 
since the last solicitation for nominations. Thus, with each new 
solicitation, States have the opportunity to re-establish the maximum 
number of designated shortage situations. NIFA reserves the right in 
the future to proportionally adjust the maximum number of designated 
shortage situations per State to ensure a balance between available 
funds and the requirement to ensure priority is given to mitigating 
veterinary shortages corresponding to situations of greatest need. 
These Nomination Allocation tables are available under the Shortage 
Situations section at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp.
    Table I represents ``Special Consideration Areas'' which include 
any State or Insular Area not reporting data, and/or reporting less 
than $1,000,000 in annual Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales 
($), and/or possessing less than 500,000 Acres. One nomination is 
allocated to any State or Insular Area classified as a Special 
Consideration Area.
    Table II shows how NIFA determined nomination allocation based on 
quartile ranks of States for two variables correlated with demand for 
food supply veterinary services; ``Livestock and Livestock Products 
Total Sales ($)'' (LPTS) and ``Land Area (acres)'' (LA). The total 
number of NIFA-approved/designated shortage situations per State is 
based on the quartile ranking of each State in terms of LPTS and LA. 
States for which NASS has both LPTS and LA values, and which have at 
least $1,000,000 LPTS and at least 500,000 acres LA (typically all 
States plus Puerto Rico), were independently ranked from least to 
greatest value for each of these two composite variables. The two 
ranked lists were then divided into

[[Page 3701]]

quartiles with quartile 1 containing the lowest variable values and 
quartile 4 containing the highest variable values. Each State then 
received the number of designated shortage situations corresponding to 
the number of the quartile in which the State falls. Thus a State that 
falls in the second quartile for LA and the third quartile for LPTS 
will be invited to submit up to five designated shortage situations (2 
+ 3). This transparent computation was made for each State thereby 
giving a range of 2 to 8 designated shortage situations, contingent 
upon each State's quartile ranking for the two variables. Should 
changes in future funding for the program indicate the need for an 
increase or decrease in the maximum number of designated shortage 
situations, a multiplier either greater or less than one will be 
applied to make a proportional adjustment to every State.
    The total number of nominations a State Animal Health Official may 
submit on behalf of his/her State for the current solicitation is shown 
in Table III.
    While Federal Lands are widely dispersed within States and Insular 
Areas across the country, they constitute a composite total land area 
over twice the size of Alaska. If the 200-mile limit U.S. coastal 
waters and associated fishery areas are added, Federal Land total 
acreage would exceed 1 billion. Both State and Federal Animal Health 
officials have responsibilities for matters relating directly or 
indirectly to terrestrial and aquatic food animal health on Federal 
Lands. An example of a food animal health problem requiring 
coordination between State and Federal animal health officials is the 
reemergence of bovine TB infection, thought to be caused in part by 
circulation of this pathogen in a variety of undomesticated animal 
reservoirs that come in contact with domestic cattle. Interaction 
between wildlife and domestic livestock, such as sheep and cattle, is 
particularly common in the plains States where significant portions of 
Federal lands are leased for grazing. Therefore, both SAHOs and the 
Chief Federal Animal Health Officer (Deputy Administrator, Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service or designee) may submit nominations to 
address shortage situations on or related to Federal Lands. These 
nominations count toward the maximum number of nominations allocated to 
each entity.
    NIFA emphasizes that shortage nomination allocation is merely 
intended to broadly balance number of certified shortage situations 
across States prior to the applications and awards phase of the VMLRP. 
In the awards phase, no State will be given a preference for placement 
of awardees. Awards will be made based strictly on the peer review 
panel's assessment of the quality of the match between the knowledge, 
skills and abilities of the applicant and the attributes of the 
specific shortage situation applied for.
5. Period Covered
    Each designated shortage situation shall be certified until filled, 
or withdrawn by the SAHO. A SAHO may request that NIFA remove a 
previously certified and designated shortage situation by sending an e-
mail to the program manager, Dr. Gary Sherman ([email protected]). 
The request should specifically identify the shortage situation 
proposed for decertification, and reason(s) for decertification should 
be included. The program manager will review the request, make a 
determination, and inform the requesting SAHO of the final action 
taken. Where a request for decertification leads to removal from the 
list of NIFA-designated shortage situations, the decertified situation 
may not be replaced by nomination of an alternate shortage situation 
until the next time NIFA releases an RFA soliciting shortage 
nominations for this program.
6. Submission and Due Date
    Shortage situation nominations must be submitted by March 8, 2010, 
to the Office of Extramural Programs; National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture (NIFA); U.S. Department of Agriculture. The nominations 
must be submitted by E-mail to [email protected].
7. Definitions
    For the purpose of implementing the solicitation for veterinary 
shortage situations, the following definitions are applicable:
    Act means the National Veterinary Medical Service Act, as amended.
    Agency or NIFA means the National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture.
    Department means the United States Department of Agriculture.
    Food animal means the following species: bovine, porcine, ovine/
camelid, cervid, poultry, caprine, and any other species as determined 
by the Secretary.
    Food supply veterinary medicine means all aspects of veterinary 
medicine's involvement in food supply systems, from traditional 
agricultural production to consumption.
    Insular area means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American 
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated 
States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the 
Republic of Palau, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
    NVMSA means the National Veterinary Medicine Service Act.
    Practice of food supply veterinary medicine includes corporate/
private practices devoted to food animal medicine, mixed animal 
medicine located in a rural area (at least 30 percent of practice 
devoted to food animal medicine), food safety, epidemiology, public 
health, animal health, and other practices that contribute to the 
production of a safe and wholesome food supply.
    Practice of veterinary medicine means: To diagnose, treat, correct, 
change, alleviate, or prevent animal disease, illness, pain, deformity, 
defect, injury, or other physical, dental, or mental conditions by any 
method or mode; including: the prescription, dispensing, 
administration, or application of any drug, medicine, biologic, 
apparatus, anesthetic, or other therapeutic or diagnostic substance or 
medical or surgical technique, or the use of complementary, 
alternative, and integrative therapies, or the use of any manual or 
mechanical procedure for reproductive management, or the rendering of 
advice or recommendation by any means including telephonic and other 
electronic communications with regard to any of the above.
    Rural area means any area other than a city or town that has a 
population of 50,000 inhabitants and the urbanized area contiguous and 
adjacent to such a city or town.
    Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other officer 
or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved has been 
delegated.
    Service area means geographic area in which the veterinarian will 
be providing veterinary medical services.
    State means any one of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, 
and the insular areas of the United States. Also included are total 
``Federal Lands'', defined for convenience as a single entity.
    State animal health official or SAHO means the State veterinarian, 
or equivalent, who will be responsible for nominating and certifying 
veterinarian shortage situations within State, insular Area, DC or 
Federal Lands entities.
    Veterinarian means a person who has received a professional 
veterinary medicine degree from a college of veterinary medicine 
accredited by the AVMA Council on Education.
    Veterinary medicine means all branches and specialties included

[[Page 3702]]

within the practice of veterinary medicine.
    Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program or VMLRP means the 
Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program authorized by the National 
Veterinary Medical Service Act.
    Veterinarian shortage situation means any of the following 
situations in which the Secretary, in accordance with the process in 
Subpart A of 7 CFR part 3431, determines has a shortage of 
veterinarians:
    (1) Geographical areas that the Secretary determines have a 
shortage of food supply veterinarians; and
    (2) Areas of veterinary practice that the Secretary determines have 
a shortage of food supply veterinarians, such as food animal medicine, 
public health, animal health, epidemiology, and food safety.

B. Nomination Form and Description of Fields

1. Access to Nomination Form
    The veterinary shortage situation nomination form is available in 
the Shortage Situations section at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp and 
should be e-mailed to [email protected].
2. Physical Location of Shortage Area or Position
    Following conclusion of the nomination submission and designation 
process, NIFA must prepare lists and/or map(s) that include all 
certified shortage situations. This will require specification of a 
physical location representing the center of the service area (for a 
geographic shortage), or the location of the main office or work 
address for a public practice and/or specialty practice shortage. For 
example, if the State seeks to certify a tri-county area as a food 
animal veterinary service (e.g., Type I) shortage situation, a road 
intersection approximating the center of the tri-county area would 
constitute a satisfactory physical location for NIFA's listing and 
mapping purposes. By contrast, if the State is identifying ``veterinary 
diagnostician'', a Type III nomination, as a shortage situation, then 
the nominator would complete this field by filling in the address of 
the location where the diagnostician would work (e.g., State animal 
disease diagnostic laboratory).
3. Type I Shortage--80 Percent or Greater Private Practice Food Supply 
Veterinary Medicine
    Check one or more boxes indicating which specie(s) constitute the 
veterinary shortage situation. The Type I shortage situation must 
entail at least an 80 percent time commitment to private practice food 
supply veterinary medicine. The nominator will specify the minimum 
percent time (between 80 and 100 percent) a veterinarian must commit in 
order to satisfactorily fill the specific nominated situation. The 
shortage situation may be located anywhere (rural or non-rural) so long 
as the veterinary service shortages to be mitigated are consistent with 
the definition of ``practice of food supply veterinary medicine.'' The 
minimum 80 percent time commitment is, in part, recognition of the fact 
that occasionally food animal veterinary practitioners are expected to 
meet the needs of other veterinary service sectors such as clientele 
owning companion and exotic animals. Type I nominations are intended to 
address those shortage situations where the nominator believes a 
veterinarian can operate profitably committing between 80 and 100 
percent time to food animal medicine activities in the designated 
shortage area, given the client base and other socio-economic factors 
impacting viability of veterinary practices in the area. This generally 
corresponds to a shortage area where clients can reasonably be expected 
to pay for professional veterinary services and where food animal 
populations are sufficiently dense to support a (or another) 
veterinarian. The personal residence of the veterinarian (VMLRP 
awardee) and the address of veterinary practice employing the 
veterinarian may or may not fall within the geographic bounds of the 
designated shortage area.
4. Type II Shortage--30 Percent or Greater Private Practice Food Supply 
Veterinary Medicine in a Rural Area (as Defined)
    Check one or more boxes indicating which specie(s) constitute the 
veterinary shortage situation. The shortage situation must be in an 
area satisfying the definition of ``rural.'' The minimum 30 percent-
time (12 hr/wk) commitment of an awardee to serve in a rural shortage 
situation is in recognition of the fact that there may be some remote 
or economically depressed rural areas in need of food animal veterinary 
services that are unable to support a practitioner predominately 
serving the food animal sector, yet the need for food animal veterinary 
services for an existing, relatively small, proportion of available 
food animal business is nevertheless great. The Type II nomination is 
therefore intended to address those rural shortage situations where the 
nominator believes there is a critical shortage of food supply 
veterinary services, and that a veterinarian can operate profitably 
committing 30 to 100 percent to food animal medicine in the designated 
rural shortage area. The nominator will specify the minimum percent 
time (between 30 and 100 percent) a veterinarian must commit in order 
to satisfactorily fill the specific nominated situation. Under the Type 
II nomination category, the expectation is that the veterinarian may 
provide veterinary services to other veterinary sectors (e.g., 
companion animal clientele) as a means of achieving financial 
viability. As with Type I nominations, the residence of the 
veterinarian (VMLRP awardee) and/or the address of veterinary practice 
employing the veterinarian may or may not fall within the geographic 
bounds of the designated shortage area. However, the awardee is 
required to verify the specified minimum percent time commitment (30 
percent to 100 percent) to service within the specified geographic 
shortage area.
5. Type III Shortage--Public Practice Shortage (49%--Time or Greater 
Public Practice)
    In the spaces provided, identify the ``Employer'' and the 
``Position Title'', and check one or more of the appropriate boxes 
identifying the specialty/disciplinary area(s) being nominated as a 
shortage situation. This is a broad nomination category comprising many 
types of specialized veterinary training and employment areas relating 
to food supply veterinary workforce capacity and capability. These 
positions are typically located in city, county, State and Federal 
Government, and institutions of higher education. Examples of positions 
within the public practice sector include university faculty and staff, 
veterinary laboratory diagnostician, County Public Health Officer, 
State Veterinarian, State Public Health Veterinarian, State 
Epidemiologist, FSIS meat inspector, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) Area Veterinarian in Charge (AVIC), and Federal 
Veterinary Medical Officer (VMO).
    Veterinary shortage situations such as those listed above are 
eligible for consideration under Type III nomination. However, 
nominators should be aware that Congress has stipulated that the VMLRP 
must emphasize private food animal practice shortage situations. 
Accordingly, NIFA anticipates that loan repayments for the Public 
Practice sector will be limited to approximately 10 percent of total 
nominations and available funds.
    The minimum time commitment serving under a Type III shortage

[[Page 3703]]

nomination is 49 percent. The nominator will specify the minimum 
percent time (between 49 percent and 100 percent) a veterinarian must 
commit in order to satisfactorily fill the specific nominated 
situation. NIFA understands that some public practice employment 
opportunities that are shortage situations may be part-time positions. 
For example, a veterinarian pursuing an advanced degree (in a shortage 
discipline area) on a part-time basis may also be employed by the 
university for the balance of the veterinarian's time to provide part-
time professional veterinary service(s) such as teaching, clinical 
service, or laboratory animal care; areas that may or may not also 
qualify as veterinary shortage situations. The 49 percent minimum 
therefore provides flexibility to nominators wishing to certify public 
practice shortage situations that would be ineligible under more 
stringent minimum percent time requirements.
6. Written Response Sections
    a. Objectives of a veterinarian meeting this shortage situation.
    Within the allowed word limit the nominator should clearly State 
overarching objectives the State hopes to achieve by placing a 
veterinarian in the nominated situation. Include the minimum percent 
time commitment (within the range of the shortage Type selected) the 
awardee is expected to devote to filling the specific food supply 
veterinary shortage situation.
    b. Activities of a veterinarian meeting this shortage situation.
    Within the allowed word limit the nominator should clearly State 
the principal day-to-day professional activities that would have to be 
conducted in order to achieve the objectives described in (a) above.
    c. Past efforts to recruit and retain a veterinarian in the 
shortage situation.
    Within the allowed word limit the nominator should explain any 
prior efforts to mitigate this veterinary service shortage, and 
prospects for recruiting veterinarian(s) in the future.
    d. Risk of this veterinarian position not being secured or 
retained.
    Within the allowed word limit the nominator should explain the 
consequences of not addressing this veterinary shortage situation.
    e. Candidacy for a ``service in emergency'' agreement. NIFA is not 
requesting information in support of this type of agreements at this 
time.

C. NIFA Review of Shortage Situation Nominations

1. Review Panel Composition and Process
    NIFA will convene a panel of food supply veterinary medicine 
experts from Federal and State agencies, as well as institutions 
receiving Animal Health and Disease Research Program funds under 
section 1433 of NARETPA, who will review the nominations and make 
recommendations to the NIFA Program Manager. NIFA explored the possibly 
of including experts from professional organizations for this process, 
but under the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
Policy Act (NARETPA) section 1409A(e), panelists for the purposes of 
this process are limited to Federal and State agencies and cooperating 
State institutions (i.e., NARETPA section 1433 recipients).
    The VMLRP Program Manager will then review the recommendations and 
designate the VMLRP shortage situations. The list of shortage 
situations will be published in the Federal Register and will be made 
available on the NIFA Web site at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp.
2. Review Criteria
    Criteria used by the shortage situation nomination review panel and 
NIFA for certifying a veterinary shortage situation will be consistent 
with the information requested in the shortage situations nomination 
form. NIFA understands that defining the risk landscape associated with 
shortages of veterinary services throughout a State is a process that 
may require consideration of many qualitative and quantitative factors. 
In addition, each shortage situation will be characterized by a 
different array of subjective and objective supportive information that 
must be developed into a cogent case identifying, characterizing, and 
justifying a given geographic or disciplinary area as one deficient in 
certain types of veterinary capacity or service. To accommodate the 
uniqueness of each shortage situation, the nomination form provides 
opportunities to present a case using both supportive metrics and 
narrative explanations to define and explain the proposed need. At the 
same time, the elements of the nomination form provide a common 
structure for the information collection process which will in turn 
facilitate fair comparison of the relative merits of each nomination by 
the evaluation panel.
    While NIFA anticipates some arguments made in support of a given 
shortage situation will be qualitative, respondents are encouraged to 
present verifiable quantitative and qualitative evidentiary information 
where ever possible.
    Maximum point values review panelists may award for response to 
each of the nomination for form elements are as follows:
    20 points: Describe the objectives of a veterinarian meeting this 
shortage situation as well as being located in the community, area, 
State/insular area, or position requested above.
    20 points: Describe the activities of a veterinarian meeting this 
shortage situation and being located in the community, area, State/
insular area, or position requested above.
    15 points: Describe any past efforts to recruit and retain a 
veterinarian in the shortage situation identified above.
    25 points: Describe the risk of this veterinarian position not 
being secured or retained. Include the risk(s) to the production of a 
safe and wholesome food supply and/or to animal, human, and 
environmental health not only in the community but in the region, 
State/insular area, nation, and/or international community.
    An additional 20 points will be used by review panelists to 
evaluate overall merit/quality of the case made for inclusion of each 
nomination in the list of certified veterinary shortage situations.
    Prior to the panel being convened, shortage situation nominations 
will be evaluated and scored according to the established scoring 
system by a primary reviewer. When the panel convenes, the primary 
reviewer will present each nomination orally in summary form. After 
each presentation, panelists will have an opportunity, if necessary, to 
discuss the nomination, with the primary reviewer leading the 
discussion and recording comments. After the panel discussion is 
complete, any scoring revisions will be made by and at the discretion 
of the primary reviewer. The panel is then polled to recommend, or not 
recommend, the shortage situation designation. Nominations scoring 70 
or higher by the primary reviewer (on a scale of 0 to 100), and 
receiving a simple majority vote in support of designation as a 
shortage situation will be ``recommended for designation as a shortage 
situation.'' Nominations scoring below 70 by the primary reviewer, and 
failure to achieve a simple majority vote in support of designation 
will be ``not recommended for designation as a shortage situation.'' In 
the event of a discrepancy between the primary reviewer's scoring and 
the panel poll results, the VMLRP program manager will be authorized to 
make the final

[[Page 3704]]

determination on the nomination's designation.

    Done at Washington, DC, January 15, 2010.
Roger Beachy,
Director, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2010-1114 Filed 1-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P