Solicitation of Veterinary Shortage Situation Nominations for the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP), 80878-80883 [2011-33112]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• National Institute of Food and Agriculture

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80878-80883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33112]


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

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; [75 FR 20239-
20248]) for fiscal year (FY) 2012, as authorized under the National 
Veterinary Medical Services Act (NVMSA), 7 U.S.C. 3151a. This notice 
initiates a 60-day 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 of the 
aforementioned entities are eligible to submit nominations, up to the 
maximum indicated for each entity 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; 
Email: vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose

    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 (https://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 U.S. 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 
U.S. 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 high 
consequence foreign animal diseases, and other threats to the health 
and well being of both animals and humans who 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).

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 2012 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. 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 to 
implement the VMLRP 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 for support of the program, in December 2007, the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 appropriated an additional

[[Page 80879]]

$868,875 for support of the VMLRP, in March 2009, the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8) appropriated $2,950,000 for 
the VMLRP, and in October 2009, the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 
of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-80) appropriated $4,800,000 for the VMLRP. On 
April 15, 2011, the President signed into law, Public Law 112-10, 
Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2011, which after a .2% rescission, appropriated an additional 
$4,790,400 for the VMLRP.
    In FY 2010, NIFA announced the first funding opportunity for the 
VMLRP and received 260 applications from which 53 awards totaling 
$5,186,000 were issued. Consequently, there was a cumulative total of 
up to $8,000,000 available for awards heading into the FY 2011 funding 
opportunity. Funding for FY 2012 and future years will be 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. 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 AVMA-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 Final Rule [75 FR 20239-20248], NIFA hereby 
implements guidelines for authorized State Animal Health Officials to 
nominate veterinary shortage situations for the FY 2012 program cycle:

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 
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, as in the first 
two years of the program, the 2012 program cycle and perhaps additional 
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 the 
Governor's designee in each State. The SAHOs are requested to submit 
nominations to vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov by way of the Veterinarian Shortage 
Situation Nomination Form (OMB Control Number 0524-0046), which is 
available in the State Animal Health Officials section on the VMLRP Web 
site at 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

[[Page 80880]]

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 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 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 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
    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 two years of the program, 
NIFA accepted a number of nominations equivalent to the allowable 
number of designated shortage areas for each state. In the 2012 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 2012 cycle, have an 
opportunity to do the following: (1) Retain designated status for any 
shortage situation successfully designated in 2011 (if there is no 
change to any information, the nomination will be approved for 2012 
without the need for re-review by the merit panel), (2) rescind any 
nomination officially designated in 2011, and (3) submit new 
nominations. The total of the number of new nominations plus designated 
nominations retained (carried over) may not exceed the total number of 
shortages each entity is permitted. Any amendment to an existing 
shortage nomination is presumed to constitute a significant change. 
Therefore, amended nominations must be rescinded and resubmitted to 
NIFA as new nominations and be re-evaluated by the 2012 review panel.
    The state cap on number of nominations (and potential designations) 
will remain the same in 2012 as they were for the previous two years. 
Thus, all states have the opportunity to re-establish the maximum 
number of designated shortage situations. Awards from previous years 
have no bearing on a state's maximum number of allowable shortage 
nomination submissions or number of designations for subsequent years. 
NIFA reserves the right in the future to proportionally adjust the

[[Page 80881]]

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 2012 are 
available under the State Animal Health Officials section of the VMLRP 
Web site at https://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, 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-approved/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 have a 
maximum of five designated shortage situations (2 + 3), should the 
external review panel recommend all allowable nominations, and NIFA 
concur with the panels' recommendations. 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 maximum number of designated shortage situations for each State 
in 2012 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.
    NIFA emphasizes that shortage nomination allocation is merely 
intended to broadly balance the number of designated 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 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.
5. FY 2012 Shortage Situation Nomination Process
    As described in Section 4 above, all SAHOs will, for the FY 2012 
cycle, have an opportunity to do the following: (1) Retain (carry over) 
designated status for any shortage situation successfully designated in 
2011 and not revised, without need for reevaluation by merit review 
panel, (2) rescind any nomination officially designated in 2011, 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 2012 review panel. The maximum 
number of nominations (and potential designations) for each state is 
the same in 2012 as 2011 and 2010.
    The following process is the mechanism by which a SAHO should 
retain or rescind a designated nomination: NIFA will initiate the 
process by sending an email to each SAHO of States with at least one 
designated nomination from FY 2011 that went unfilled with a PDF copy 
of each nomination form attached to the email. 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. The SAHO will then email the carry over 
nomination(s), along with any new nominations, to vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov 
by the given deadline.
    Both new and retained nominations should be submitted on the 
Veterinary Shortage Situation Nomination form provided in the State 
Animal Health Officials section at https://www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp.
6. Submission and Due Date
    Shortage situation nominations, both new and carry over, must be 
submitted by February 27, 2012, to the Veterinary Medicine Loan 
Repayment Program; Division of Animal Systems; Institute of Food 
Production and Sustainability; National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture; U.S. Department of Agriculture, or by email to 
vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov.
7. Period Covered
    Each designated shortage situation shall be certified and remain 
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 email to vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov. The request 
should specifically identify the shortage situation the SAHO wishes to 
withdraw, and reason(s) for its withdrawal 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 withdrawal of a designated shortage situation leads to its removal 
from the list of NIFA-designated shortage situations, the withdrawn 
situation may not be replaced by nomination of an alternate shortage 
situation until the next program cycle NIFA solicits shortage 
nominations for this program.

[[Page 80882]]

8. Definitions
    For the purpose of implementing the solicitation for veterinary 
shortage situations, the definitions provided in 7 CFR part 3431 are 
applicable.

B. Nomination Form and Description of Fields

1. Access to Nomination Form
    The veterinary shortage situation nomination form is available in 
the State Animal Health Officials section at https://www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp. The completed form must be emailed to vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov.
2. Physical Location of Shortage Area or Position
    Following conclusion of the nomination submission and designation 
process, NIFA will prepare lists and/or map(s) that include all 
designated shortage situations for the current program year. 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
    SAHOs identifying this shortage type must 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 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 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)
    SAHOs identifying this shortage type must 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 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, based on a standard 
40 hour work week) to service within the specified geographic shortage 
area.
5. Type III Shortage--Public Practice Shortage (49%-Time 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 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

[[Page 80883]]

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 the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Teaching Policy Act (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).
    The VMLRP Program Manager 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 https://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. 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 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 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 16th day of December, 2011.
Chavonda Jacobs-Young,
Acting Director, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2011-33112 Filed 12-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P