[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75959-75965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30717]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 /
Notices
[[Page 75959]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Solicitation of Veterinary Shortage Situation Nominations 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 of veterinary service shortage situations for
the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) for fiscal year
(FY) 2016, as authorized under the National Veterinary Medical Services
Act (NVMSA), 7 U.S.C. 3151a. This notice initiates the nomination
period and prescribes the procedures and criteria to be used by State,
Insular Area, DC and Federal Lands to nominate veterinary shortage
situations. Each year all eligible nominating entities may submit
nominations, up to the maximum indicated for each entity in this
notice. NIFA is conducting this solicitation of veterinary shortage
situation nominations under a previously approved information
collection (OMB Control Number 0524-0046).
DATES: Shortage situation nominations, both new and carry over, must be
submitted on or before February 10, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submissions must be made by clicking the submit button on
the Veterinarian Shortage Situation nomination form provided in the
VMLRP Shortage Situations section at www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp.
This form is sent as a data file directly to the Veterinary
Medicine Loan Repayment Program; National Institute of Food and
Agriculture; U.S. Department of Agriculture.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danielle Tack; Program Coordinator,
Veterinary Science; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; U.S.
Department of Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-2220; Voice: 202-401-6802; Fax: 202-401-6156;
Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Purpose
A 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
(www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Reference/Pages/about-fsvm-coalition.aspx),
drew considerable attention to an existing and apparent 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. Subsequently
the Government Accountability Office released a report entitled
``Veterinary Workforce: Actions Are Needed to Ensure Sufficient
Capacity for Protecting Public and Animal Health'' (GAO-09-178: Feb 18,
2009). This report was followed by a National Academies of Science
report in 2013 entitled ``Workforce Needs in Veterinary Medicine''.
While the 2013 report concluded that some sectors of the veterinary
workforce are not in shortage, the authors affirmed that ``livestock
farmers who live far from populated areas have difficulty obtaining
veterinary care.'' Furthermore, regarding the largest subgroup of
veterinarians serving the food animal industries, the reported stated,
``. . . new graduates are not entering this type of practice anymore,
[and therefore] food-animal-predominant veterinarians, as a group, are
now composed of rapidly-aging members.''
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. 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. Private
practice 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 high consequence foreign animal diseases, emergence and propagation
of antibiotic resistance, and other threats to the health and wellbeing
of both animals and humans who consume animal products.
Among the most alarming findings of the Coalition-sponsored studies
was that insufficient numbers of veterinary students are selecting food
supply veterinary medical careers. This development has led both to
current workforce imbalances and to projected worsening of localized
shortages over the subsequent 10 years. Burdensome educational debt was
the leading concern students listed for opting not to choose a career
in food animal practice or other food supply veterinary sectors.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association's (AVMA) 2015
report on veterinary debt and income, the mean veterinary educational
debt for students graduating from veterinary school with debt was
$153,191. 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). When the VMLRP was first
authorized in 2005, the average graduating educational debt of
veterinarians was approximately $75,000. Since that time average
educational debt burden has more than doubled thereby greatly
exacerbating the leading factor promoting the workforce imbalance this
program seeks to mitigate.
The VMLRP is aligned with the USDA Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years
2014-
[[Page 75960]]
2018, particularly with the following strategic goals and objectives:
Goal 1--Assist Rural Communities to Create Prosperity so They Are Self-
Sustaining, Repopulating, and Economically Thriving, Goal 3--Help
America Promote Agricultural Production and Biotechnology Exports as
America Works to Increase Food Security, Objective 4.3--Protect Public
Health by Ensuring Food is Safe, and Objective 4.4--Protect
Agricultural Health by Minimizing Major Diseases and Pests to Ensure
Access to Safe, Plentiful, and Nutritious Food. A copy of the USDA
Strategic Plan is available at www.ocfo.usda.gov/usdasp/sp2014/usda-strategic-plan-fy-2014-2018.pdf.
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. FY 2016 Shortage Situation Nomination Process
6. Submission and Due Date
7. Period Covered
8. Definitions
B. Nomination Form and Description of Fields
1. Access to Nomination Form
2. Physical Location of Shortage Area or Position
3. Overall Priority of Shortage
4. Type I Shortage
5. Type II Shortage
6. Type III Shortage
7. Specifying a Different Service Time Requirement (Optional)
8. 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 FY 2010, NIFA announced the first funding opportunity for the
VMLRP. From FY 2010 through FY 2015, NIFA received 995 applications
from which 291 VMLRP awards totaling $25,292,341 were issued. Funding
for FY 2016 and future years are based on annual appropriations and
balances, if any, 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.
The Secretary delegated the authority to carry out this program to
NIFA pursuant to 7 CFR 2.66(a)(141).
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 Final Rule [75 FR 20239-20248], NIFA hereby
implements guidelines for authorized State Animal Health Officials
(SAHO) to nominate veterinary shortage situations for the FY 2016
program cycle:
II. Nomination of Veterinary Shortage Situations
A. General
1. Eligible Shortage Situations
Section 1415A of NARETPA, as amended and revised by Section 7105 of
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, assessment of
submitted nominations by the external review panel convened by NIFA
will reflect the intent of Congress that priority be given to certain
types of veterinary service shortage situations. NIFA therefore
anticipates that the stronger 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.
2. State Respondents and Use of Consultation
The only authorized respondent on behalf of each State is the chief
State Animal Health Official (SAHO), as duly authorized by the Governor
or the Governor's designee in each State. The chief SAHO must submit
nominations using the Veterinarian Shortage Situation Nomination Form
(OMB Control Number 0524-0046), which is available in the VMLRP
Shortage Situations section on the VMLRP Web site at www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp. One form must be submitted for each nominated shortage
situation. When selecting ``SUBMIT'' on the form a data file will be
sent directly to NIFA. NIFA strongly encourages the SAHO to involve
leading health animal experts in the State in the identification and
prioritization of shortage situation nominations.
[[Page 75961]]
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), 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 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 review process) should roughly reflect the
national distribution of food supply 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 of limiting 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 service coverage.
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 actual shortage distribution. In
addition, this method limits dilution of highest need areas with lower
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 parameters that correlate with the hypothetical
cumulative relative need for each state in comparison to other states.
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 public data that correlate with demand for food supply
veterinary service. NIFA consulted with NASS and determined that the
NASS variables most strongly correlated with state-level 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.
Although these two NASS variables are not perfect predictors of
veterinary service demand, NIFA believes they account for a significant
proportion of several of the most relevant factors influencing
veterinary service need and risk for the purpose of fairly and
transparently estimating veterinary service demand. To further ensure
fairness and equitability, NIFA is employing these variables in a
straightforward and transparent manner that ensures every state and
insular area is eligible for at least one nomination and that all
States receive an 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) assure the number of shortage situation
nominations submitted fosters emphasis on selection by nominators and
applicants of the highest priority need areas, and (3) 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 Final 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
The number of designated shortage situations per state will be
limited by NIFA, and this has an impact on the number of new
nominations a state may submit each time NIFA solicits shortage
nominations. In the 2016 cycle, NIFA is again accepting the number of
nominations equivalent to the allowable number of designated shortage
areas for each state. All eligible submitting entities will, for the
2016 cycle, have an opportunity to do the following: (1) Retain
designated status for any shortage situation successfully designated in
2015 (if there is no change to any information, the nomination will be
approved for 2016 without the need for re-review by the merit panel),
(2) rescind any nomination officially designated in 2015, and (3)
submit new nominations. The total of the number of new nominations plus
designated nominations retained (carried over) may not exceed the
maximum number of nominations each entity is permitted. Any amendment
to an existing shortage nomination is presumed to constitute a
significant change. Therefore, an amended nomination must be rescinded
and resubmitted to NIFA as a new nomination and it will be evaluated by
the 2016 review panel.
The maximum number of nominations (and potential designations) has
been updated based on 2012 NASS Agricultural Census data. Awards from
previous years have no bearing on a state's maximum number of allowable
shortage nomination
[[Page 75962]]
submissions or number of designations for subsequent years. 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. Nomination Allocation tables for FY 2016 are available
under the VMLRP Shortage Situations section of the VMLRP Web site at
www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp.
Table I lists ``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, as reported by NASS. 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 broadly 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- designated shortage situations per state in any
given program year 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 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 may submit a
maximum of five shortage situation nominations (2 + 3). This
transparent computation was made for each state thereby giving a range
of 2 to 8 shortage situation nominations, contingent upon each state's
quartile ranking for the two variables.
The maximum number of designated shortage situations for each State
in 2016 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 included, Federal Land total
acreage would exceed 1 billion. Both State and Federal Animal Health
officials have responsibilities for matters relating to terrestrial and
aquatic food animal health on Federal Lands. 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.
NIFA emphasizes that shortage nomination allocation is set to
broadly balance the number of designated shortage situations across
states prior to the application and award phases of the VMLRP. Awards
will be made based strictly on the peer review panels' 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, thus no state will be given a preference for placement of
awardees. Additionally, unless otherwise specified in the shortage
nomination form, each designated shortage situation will be limited to
one award.
5. FY 2016 Shortage Situation Nomination Process
As described in Section 4 above, all SAHOs will, for the FY 2016
cycle, have an opportunity to do the following: (1) Retain (carry over)
designated status for any shortage situation successfully designated in
2014 and not revised, without need for reevaluation by merit review
panel, (2) rescind any nomination officially designated in 2014, and
(3) submit new nominations. The total number of new nominations and
designated nominations retained (carried over) may not exceed the
maximum number of shortages each state is allocated. An amendment to an
existing shortage nomination constitutes a significant change and
therefore must be rescinded and resubmitted to NIFA as a new
nomination, to be evaluated by the 2016 review panel. The maximum
number of nominations (and potential designations) for each state is
provided on NIFA's Web site at www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp.
The following process is the mechanism by which a SAHO should
retain or rescind a designated nomination: Each SAHO will go to the map
of VMLRP designated shortage situations for FY 2015 (http://nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp-map?state=All&fy%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=2015&=Apply)
to obtain the PDF copy of the nomination form for each designated area
that went unfilled (not awarded) in FY 2015. If the SAHO wishes to
retain (carry over) one or more designated nomination(s), the SAHO
shall copy and paste the prior year information (unrevised) into the
current year's nomination form and select ``SUBMIT''.
Both new and retained nominations must be submitted on the
Veterinary Shortage Situation Nomination form provided in the VMLRP
Shortage Situations section at www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp.
6. Submission and Due Date
Submissions must be made by clicking the submit button on the
Veterinarian Shortage Situation nomination form provided in the VMLRP
Shortage Situations section at www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp.
This form is sent as a data file directly to the Veterinary
Medicine Loan Repayment Program; National Institute of Food and
Agriculture; U.S. Department of Agriculture. Shortage situation
nominations, both new and carry over, must be submitted on or before
February 10, 2016.
7. Period Covered
Each shortage situation is approved for one program year cycle
only. However, any previously approved shortage situation not filled in
a given program year may be resubmitted with no changes as a ``carry-
over'' shortage in response to the solicitation for shortage
nominations the following program year. Content of carry-over shortage
nominations must not be changed in any respect, except for providing a
revised date of submission and/or the name of a new submitting chief
SAHO in the event the person holding that post has changed. Carry-over
shortage nominations will not be required to undergo panel merit review
and shall therefore be automatically approved. However, by resubmitting
a nomination in a following program cycle, the SAHO is affirming that
it is his or her professional judgment that the original case made for
shortage status, and the original description of needs, are still
current and accurate.
8. Definitions
For the purpose of implementing the solicitation for veterinary
shortage situations, the definitions provided in 7 CFR part 3431 are
applicable.
[[Page 75963]]
B. Nomination Form and Description of Fields
1. Access to Nomination Form
The veterinary shortage situation nomination form is available in
the VMLRP Shortage Situations section at www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp. The
completed form must be sent to NIFA by selecting ``SUBMIT'' on the
nomination form.
2. Physical Location of Shortage Area or Position
Following conclusion of the nomination and designation process,
NIFA will prepare lists and/or maps that include all designated
shortage situations for the current program year. This effort requires
a physical location that represents 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 (i.e., 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 primary
address of the location where the diagnostician would work (e.g., State
animal disease diagnostic laboratory).
3. Overall Priority of Shortage
Congressional intent is for this program to incentivize applicants
to ``serve in veterinary service shortage areas with the greatest
need.'' There is therefore the presumption that all areas nominated as
shortage situations should be classified as at least ``moderate
priority'' shortages. To assist nomination merit review panelists and
award phase peer panelists in scoring shortage nominations and ranking
applications from VMLRP applicants, SAHOs are asked to characterize
each shortage situation nomination as ``Moderate Priority'', ``High
Priority'', or ``Critical Priority'' shortages.
Moderate Priority: This shortage prioritization corresponds to an
area lacking in some aspect of food supply veterinary services,
commensurate with the service percent full-time-equivalency (FTE)
specified. Absence of, or insufficient, trained ``eyes and ears'' of a
veterinarian serving a food animal production area is sufficient to
constitute moderate priority shortage status. This is because access to
veterinary services is necessary for basic animal health, animal well-
being, production profitability, and for food safety, and because high
consequence disease outbreaks in agricultural animals or natural
catastrophes can occur spontaneously anywhere. In such cases, early
detection of disease and/or treatment of animals are essential. These
activities are the authorized purview of a licensed veterinarian. In
addition to the above examples, the SAHO is invited to make a unique
case based on other situation-specific risk criteria, for classifying a
nominated area as a Moderate Priority shortage.
High Priority: This shortage prioritization corresponds to an area
lacking sufficient access to food supply veterinary services,
commensurate with the service percent FTE specified. High Priority
status is justified by meeting the criteria for Moderate Priority
status plus any of a variety of additional concerns relating to food
supply veterinary medicine and/or public health. For example, the area
may exhibit an especially large census of food animals in comparison to
available veterinary services. Special animal or public health threats
unique to the area, such as a recent history of outbreaks of high
consequence, reportable, endemic animal and zoonotic diseases (e.g.,
Brucellosis, TB, etc.) could also constitute a high priority threat. In
addition to the above examples, the SAHO is invited to make a unique
case based on other situation-specific risk criteria, for classifying a
nominated area as a High Priority shortage.
Critical Priority: This shortage prioritization corresponds to an
area severely lacking in some aspect of food supply or public health-
related veterinary services, commensurate with the service percent FTE
specified. Critical priority status is justified by meeting the
criteria for moderate and/or high priority status plus any of a variety
of additional serious concerns relating to the roles food supply
veterinarians play in protecting animal and public health. For example,
an area may exhibit an especially high potential for natural disasters
or for incursion of catastrophic foreign animal disease such as Highly
Pathogenic Avian Influenza, Mad Cow Disease, or Foot and Mouth Disease.
High risk areas could include high through-put international animal
importation sites and areas where wildlife and domestic food animals
cross national borders carrying infectious disease agents (e.g., the
US-Mexico border). In addition to the above examples, the submitting
SAHO is invited to make a unique case based on other situation-specific
risk criteria for classifying a nominated area as a Critical Priority
shortage.
4. Type I Shortage--80 Percent or Greater Private Practice Food Supply
Veterinary Medicine
SAHOs identifying this shortage type must check one or more boxes
indicating which specie(s) constitute the veterinary shortage
situation. Indicate either ``Must Cover'' or ``May Cover'' to stipulate
which species a future awardee must be prepared, willing, and committed
to provide services for, versus which species an awardee could treat
using a minor percentage of their time obligated under a VMLRP
contract. 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 of a standard 40 hour week) 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 award recipient) and the address of veterinary
practice employing the veterinarian may or may not fall within the
geographic bounds of the designated shortage area.
5. Type II Shortage--30 Percent or Greater Private Practice Food Supply
Veterinary Medicine in a Rural Area (as Defined)
SAHOs identifying this shortage type must check one or more boxes
indicating which specie(s) constitute the
[[Page 75964]]
veterinary shortage situation. Indicate either ``Must Cover'' or ``May
Cover'' to stipulate which species a future awardee must be prepared,
willing, and committed to provide services for, versus which species an
awardee could treat using a minor percentage of their time obligated
under a VMLRP contract. The shortage situation must be in an area
satisfying the definition of ``rural.'' The minimum 30 percent-time (12
hours/week) 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 shortage of food supply veterinary
services, and that a veterinarian can operate profitably committing 30
to 79 percent to food animal medicine in the designated rural shortage
area. The nominator will specify the minimum percent time (between 30
and 79 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 award recipient)
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 79 percent, based on a
standard 40 hour work week) to service within the specified geographic
shortage area.
6. Type III Shortage--Public Practice Shortage (49 Percent or Greater
Public Practice)
SAHOs identifying this shortage type must, in the spaces provided,
identify the ``Employer'' and the presumptive ``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/or available funds.
The minimum time commitment serving under a Type III shortage
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 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.
7. Specifying a Different Service Time Requirement (Optional)
Minimum percent FTE service obligated under the VMLRP is specified
for each of the three shortage types. However, the nominator may
indicate, in the box provided on page 2 of the nomination form, a
greater percent FTE than the specified minimum, according to the
following guidelines. For a Type I shortage, the minimum FTE obligation
is 80 percent, but the nominator may specify up to 100 percent (100
percent FTE corresponds to 40 hours/week). The minimum FTE obligation
is 30 percent for Type II shortage situation, but the nominator may
specify up to 79 percent. Higher percentages should be submitted as
Type I shortages. The minimum FTE obligation is 49 percent for Type III
(public practice) shortage situations, but the nominator may specify up
to 100 percent. An entry should be made in the box for specification of
percent FTE if the percentage specified is other than the default
minimum. Otherwise the box should be left blank. In assigning a
percentage FTE, SAHOs should be cognizant of the impact this has on an
eventual awardee. If the percentage is too high for an awardee to
achieve, he or she could fall into breach status under the program and
owe any distributed funds back to NIFA. NIFA requires formal quarterly
certification that minimum service time was worked before each
quarterly loan repayment is paid to the awardee's lender(s).
Accordingly, NIFA advises that a nomination be submitted only if the
SAHO is confident that an awardee can meet the default, or optionally
specified, minimum FTE percentage each and every one of the 12 quarters
(i.e., twelve 3-month periods) constituting the 3-year duration of
service under the program.
8. Written Response Sections
a. Importance and 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 and measure(s) awardees and
NIFA could use to assess success. 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.
[[Page 75965]]
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. Affirmation Checkboxes
SAHOs submitting shortage nominations should check both
``affirmation'' boxes on the last page of the nomination form. These
two affirmations provide assurance that submitting SAHOs understand the
shortage nomination process and the importance of the SAHO having
reasonable confidence that the nomination submitted describes a bona
fide shortage area. The second assurance is particularly important to
help avoid the placement of a VMLRP awardee where veterinary coverage
already exists, and where undue competition could lead to insufficient
clientele demand to support either the awardee or the veterinary
practice originally serving the area.
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
possibility of including experts from non-governmental professional
organizations and sectors for this process, but under 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), and other postsecondary educational
institutions.
NIFA will review the panel recommendations and designate the VMLRP
shortage situations. The list of shortage situations will be made
available on the VMLRP Web site at 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 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
wherever possible. Absence of quantitative data such as animal and
veterinarian census data for the proposed shortage area(s) may lead the
panel to recommend not approving the shortage nomination.
The maximum point value review panelists may award for each element
is 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.
5 points: Describe any past efforts to recruit and retain a
veterinarian in the shortage situation identified above.
35 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 to evaluate overall merit/
quality of the case made for each nomination.
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 for 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 determination on the nomination's designation.
Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of December 2015.
Meryl Broussard,
Associate Director for Programs, National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2015-30717 Filed 12-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P