Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Notices 68843 

consumer interest groups, allied health 

professionals, and other individuals 

who have asked to be included. The 

update is available on the FSIS Web 

page. Through the Listserv and Web 

page, FSIS is able to provide 

information to a much broader and more 

diverse audience. In addition, FSIS 

offers an email subscription service 

which provides automatic and 

customized access to selected food 

safety news and information. This 

service is available at http://www.fsis.

usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/programs-andservices/email-subscription-service. 

Options range from recalls to export 

information to regulations, directives 

and notices. Customers can add or 

delete subscriptions themselves and 

have the option to password protect 

their account. 

USDA Non-Discrimination Statement 

No agency, officer, or employee of the 

USDA shall, on the grounds of race, 

color, national origin, religion, sex, 

gender identity, sexual orientation, 

disability, age, marital status, family/

parental status, income derived from a 

public assistance program, or political 

beliefs, exclude from participation in, 

deny the benefits of, or subject to 

discrimination any person in the United 

States under any program or activity 

conducted by the USDA. 

How To File a Complaint of 

Discrimination 

To file a complaint of discrimination, 

complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form, which 

may be accessed online at http://www.

ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/

2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, 

or write a letter signed by you or your 

authorized representative. 

Send your completed complaint form 

or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email: 

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–9410. 

Fax: (202) 690–7442. 

Email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center 

at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

Done at Washington, DC, on November 14, 

2014. 

Mary Frances Lowe, 

U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27413 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

[Docket No. FSIS–2010–0023] 

Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia 

coli (STEC) in Certain Raw Beef 

Products 

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

response to comments. 

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing 

that it has completed and is making 

available its analysis on the estimated 

costs and benefits associated with the 

implementation of its non-O157 STEC 

testing on beef manufacturing trimmings 

and the costs and benefits associated 

with the potential expansion of its nonO157 STEC testing to ground beef and 

ground beef components other than beef 

manufacturing trimmings. In addition, 

FSIS is responding to comments that it 

received on the previous cost benefits 

analysis. 

DATES: To receive full consideration, 

comments should be received by 

January 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested 

persons to submit comments on this 

notice and the cost benefit analysis. 

Comments may be submitted by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: This 

Web site provides the ability to type 

short comments directly into the 

comment field on this Web page or 

attach a file for lengthier comments. Go 

to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. 

• Mail, including CD–ROMs: Send to 

Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 

3782, Room 8–163A, Washington, DC 

20250–3700. 

• Hand- or courier-delivered 

submittals: Deliver to Patriots Plaza 3, 

355 E Street SW., Room 8–163A, 

Washington, DC 20250–3700. 

Instructions: All items submitted by 

mail or electronic mail must include the 

Agency name and docket number FSIS 

2010–0023. Comments received in 

response to this docket will be made 

available for public inspection and 

posted without change, including any 

personal information, to http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to background 

documents or comments received, go to 

the FSIS Docket Room at Patriot Plaza 

3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8–164, 

Washington, DC 20250–3700 between 

8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel L. Engeljohn, Ph.D., Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Policy and 

Program Development, Food Safety and 

Inspection Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; Telephone: (202) 205–0495. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 20, 2011, FSIS 

announced in the Federal Register its 

determination that raw, non-intact beef 

products or raw, intact beef products 

that are intended for use in raw, nonintact product, that are contaminated 

with Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia 

coli (STEC) O26, O45, O103, O111, 

O121, or O145 are adulterated within 

the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 601(m)(1)(76 

FR 58157; Sep. 20, 2011). In support of 

its determination, the Agency cited 

evidence of the STEC organisms’ high 

pathogenicity, low infectious dose, 

transmissibility from person to person, 

and thermal resistance high enough for 

them to survive ordinary cooking (76 FR 

51858–51859). FSIS stated that raw, 

non-intact beef products that are 

contaminated with these STEC are also 

unhealthful and unwholesome (under 

21 U.S.C. 601(m)(3)) (76 FR 58159). 

In this 2011 Federal Register notice, 

FSIS included an estimate of costs and 

benefits of testing for non-O157 STEC in 

all non-intact beef product subject to 

Agency testing (76 FR 58157; Sept. 20, 

2011, at 58162–58164). The Agency 

asked for comments on its plans for 

implementing the program, including 

cost estimates (76 FR 58164), which 

included costs to FSIS laboratories for 

analyzing trim samples for non-O157 

STEC (approximately $204,050 to 

$338,270 per year in 2010 dollars), cost 

of additional establishments testing for 

non-O157 (about $12.3 million to $16.4 

million per year), and the loss to the 

industry from diverting the 

contaminated products (about $12.1 to 

$16.1 million per year). FSIS also 

announced in this notice its plan to 

conduct a new ‘‘checklist’’ survey of its 

field inspection personnel who are 

stationed in beef slaughter and 

processing establishments. 

FSIS implemented a verification 

sampling and testing program for the six 

adulterant non-O157 STEC in raw beef 

manufacturing trimmings on June 4, 

2012, as announced in a 2012 Federal 

Register notice (77 FR 9889; Feb. 2012). 

The Agency also announced (75 FR 

31975 at 31976; May 31, 2012) that it 

would update and revise the September 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

68844 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Notices 

20, 2011, economic analysis, respond to 

comments received on the analysis, and 

assess the economic effects of testing for 

the specified STECs on raw beef 

manufacturing trimmings, other raw 

ground beef components, and ground 

beef. FSIS also announced that when 

the economic analysis was complete, 

the Agency would announce its 

availability, request comments on it, 

assess the comments, and make any 

necessary changes to the analysis before 

finalizing the analysis and expanding 

FSIS testing to include other raw ground 

beef components and ground product. 

Summary of the Economic Analysis 

FSIS has estimated the cost to the 

regulated industry and FSIS associated 

with the implementation of its nonO157 STEC testing on beef 

manufacturing trimmings since June 

2012, based on Agency testing data and 

information collected through the FSIS 

2013 Pathogen Controls in Beef 

Operations Survey. This survey is 

available at: [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/

wps/wcm/connect/184a3baa-2f73-4651- 

8aba-68124580f4e0/Pathogen_Controls_

in_Beef_Operations_Survey.pdf?MOD=

AJPERES. The survey report is at: 

[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/

connect/6d37a1fc-a3e1-40b6-90cc719bdb391522/STEC_Survey_

Comments_Summary.pdf?MOD=

AJPERES], and the cost-benefit analysis 

is at: [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/

portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federalregister/federal-register-notices]. The 

cost for the current testing of beef 

manufacturing trimmings (including 

Agency and the industry testing) is 

about $1.37 million. If the Agency 

expands the testing to bench trim, other 

components, and raw ground beef, it 

will add another $1 million to the cost 

and bring up the grand total to about 

$2.37 million. Of the $2.37 million, 

$1.38 million is for FSIS and $0.99 

million for the industry. 

FSIS also assessed the benefits 

associated with the new testing. Benefits 

would accrue from reduced illnesses 

and deaths, reduced outbreak-related 

recalls, and improved business 

practices. FSIS has concluded that the 

benefits accruing to industry, 

Government, and consumers from this 

new testing policy will result in net 

economic benefits. However, FSIS was 

not able to quantify the benefits of 

expanding the testing. 

Summary of the New Checklist Survey 

Results 

In May–July 2013, FSIS conducted the 

checklist survey entitled, ‘‘The Pathogen 

Controls in Beef Operations Survey.’’ 

The purpose of the survey was to gather 

information on the controls that beef 

slaughtering and processing 

establishments have in place to reduce 

STEC and Salmonella contamination. 

The survey questions covered a wide 

range of topics, including establishment 

pre-harvest management controls, 

establishment sanitary dressing 

procedures, establishment carcass 

sampling and testing, establishment use 

of high event periods, information on 

which beef products are produced at 

particular establishments, and controls 

that establishments use to address 

STEC. FSIS sent surveys to inspectors in 

486 establishments out of a total of 

approximately 2,300 beef slaughter or 

beef processing establishments to collect 

the information. The survey results 

related to non-O157 STEC testing 

include that about 29 percent of the beef 

establishments reassessed their HACCP 

plans for raw beef products based on 

FSIS’s new non-O157 STEC policy, and 

about 43 percent of the establishments 

that tested for non-O157 STEC took 

more than one action (such as 

confirmatory testing following 

presumptive positive results or cooking) 

with products that screened positive. 

FSIS used the survey results and an 

updated risk assessment to develop the 

updated economic analysis. 

Response to Comments on the 2011 

Federal Register Notice 

Comment: A trade association stated 

that the FSIS verification sampling and 

testing for non-O157 STEC will lead to 

additional costs for taxpayers and 

consumers because of increased testing 

and destruction or diversion of meat. 

Response: FSIS recognizes that FSIS 

testing will likely result in additional 

costs to establishments. The Agency 

understands that the industry is likely 

to transfer some of its costs to 

consumers. The Agency has determined, 

however, that the benefits resulting from 

reduced illness and deaths, reduced 

outbreak-related recalls, and improved 

business practices justify the costs. 

Comment: A trade association stated 

that FSIS underestimated the cost to the 

Agency and to the industry of 

implementing this new program. 

According to the commenter, the true 

cost of Agency testing, including the 

cost for testing ground beef, would total 

$1,170,564 per year in additional 

expenses. The commenter also stated 

that adding the costs attendant on a 

‘‘for-cause Food Safety Assessment,’’ 

which FSIS conducts when ground beef 

is confirmed to contain STEC, would 

add an additional $854,000. According 

to the comment, FSIS has grossly 

underestimated the cost of 

implementing this policy testing. 

Response: The Agency has updated 

the cost estimate to include the costs of 

expanding testing to raw ground beef 

products and other raw ground beef 

components (other than manufacturing 

trimmings). FSIS found that there will 

be additional benefits, as well as 

additional costs, should the Agency 

begin testing additional product for nonO157 STEC. As mentioned in the 

Summary of Economic Analysis, the 

cost for the current testing of beef 

manufacturing trimmings (including 

Agency and the industry testing) is 

about $1.37 million. If the Agency 

expands the testing to bench trim, other 

components, and raw ground beef, it 

will add another $1 million to the cost 

and bring the grand total to about $2.37 

million. Of the $2.37 million, $1.38 is 

for FSIS and $0.99 for the industry. 

FSIS also estimated the benefits 

associated with the new testing policy. 

Benefits would accrue from reduced 

illnesses and deaths, reduced outbreakrelated recalls, and improved business 

practices. The Agency still concludes 

that the costs are low for new testing 

that is warranted, and that the benefits 

justify the costs. 

Comment: A trade association stated 

that the Agency grossly miscalculated 

the costs to industry and made seriously 

flawed assumptions in its cost analysis 

when it concluded that only 33 percent 

of beef slaughter establishments test for 

E. coli O157:H7. The trade association 

stated that the better measure for this 

analysis would be to use the data in 

Table 5.2.10 in FSIS’ 2007 checklist 

study—‘‘Testing of Source Materials for 

03B Establishments.’’ 

Response: The Agency has updated 

the cost analysis adopting a slightly 

different approach with information 

from our 2013 Pathogen Controls in Beef 

Operations Survey. Thus, there is no 

reason to use the outdated data from the 

2007 checklist study any more. Details 

are in the updated cost-benefit analysis. 

Comment: A trade association stated 

that FSIS estimated in the 2011 Federal 

Register notice that approximately 20 

percent of establishments were testing 

for non-O157 STEC and did not 

adequately support that estimate. The 

comment further stated that the Agency 

failed to account properly for added 

laboratory costs for the industry. The 

commenter stated that industry analysis 

estimates added laboratory costs to the 

industry to range from $2.5 million to 

almost $2.9 million annually. 

Response: The Agency has updated 

the cost analysis using information from 

the 2013 Pathogen Controls in Beef 

Operations Survey and used a slightly 

different approach from the approach 

used in the earlier estimate. This 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Notices 68845 

approach is based on the number of 

samples tested by the industry and 

accounts for the added laboratory costs 

as well. The commenter did not provide 

information on how the laboratory costs 

of $2.5 million to $2.9 million were 

derived. As is explained in the revised 

cost benefit analysis, FSIS estimates that 

these costs to industry would be $0.99 

million, and these costs to FSIS would 

be $1.38 million. 

Comment: A trade association 

commented that the Agency’s estimate 

of total beef trimmings production— 

2.05 billion pounds—is inaccurate. The 

trade association claimed that, for the 

year ending June 30, 2010, the industry 

produced 6.96 billion pounds of ground 

beef, and that, since ground beef is only 

produced from raw ground beef 

components, i.e., trimmings, the more 

realistic volume of beef trimmings is 

also approximately 6.96 billion pounds. 

Additionally, the trade association 

stated that because the amount of 

trimmings is approximately 3.4 times 

greater than the Agency estimate, a more 

accurate range of the cost of diverted 

products is approximately $13.24 

million to $17.65 million dollars. A 

foreign government stated that the value 

of product that is confirmed positive 

and diverted for cooking will be 

reduced by approximately 70 to 75 

percent. 

Response: The Agency has updated 

the cost analysis and does not use 

estimated production volume or the 

value lost for products diverted for 

cooking in the updated analysis. In 

examining the 2013 Pathogen Controls 

in Beef Operations Survey data, we 

found that 43 percent of the 

establishments that tested for non-O157 

STEC took more than one action, 

including proceeding to confirmation 

testing, cooking, destroying, and others, 

with products that screened positive. 

The Agency believes that it is not 

possible to get the total volume of the 

products disposed under any of the 

actions, even if we asked that question, 

because the actions the establishments 

choose are often based on their 

particular circumstances. For example, 

if the establishment is very confident 

with its screening test methodology, it 

will probably cook the products that 

screen positive subject to available 

cooking capacity. If the establishment is 

not confident about its screening 

methodology, and there is not enough 

cooking capacity, it will probably 

proceed to confirmation or destroy the 

products, depending on the relative 

costs of conducting confirming tests 

versus destroying the products. 

Empirical literature on industry 

behavior shows that industry behaves 

strategically to maximize profits or 

minimize losses. 

Therefore, establishments’ choice of 

action with regard to product that 

screened positive will be based on 

particular circumstances, and whatever 

actions an establishment takes, the 

incentive is to avoid recalls and 

potential outbreaks at the minimum 

cost. Furthermore, if industry focused 

more on using the data from the 

verification testing conducted by the 

establishment and FSIS to improve the 

prevention efforts at slaughter, there 

would be even less contaminated 

product to be diverted. 

Comment: Several industry 

commenters stated that the Agency 

improperly calculates the cost of 

holding tested product and fails to 

consider the additional time needed to 

complete the STEC test through the final 

stage of confirmation and the other costs 

attendant thereto. 

Response: If industry decides to hold 

product that screened positive in their 

own testing until confirmed positive 

results are attained, then this is a 

business decision not driven by FSIS. 

Today, establishments do not typically 

await a confirmed positive result before 

taking action on the affected production 

lot. Industry responds to the screen 

positive result, as stated by another 

commenter below. The new non-O157 

STEC screen method that FSIS uses 

takes the same amount of time as the 

method for E. coli O157:H7. Agency 

data for FY2013 showed that the screen 

positive sample rate for non-O157 STEC 

in beef manufacturing trimming is only 

2 percent. Therefore, the additional cost 

of holding products because of 

additional FSIS testing and additional 

positive samples is likely to be minimal. 

Comment: A trade association 

representing the meat industry stated 

that there will be more recalls based on 

testing, and that the Agency’s economic 

analysis failed to consider recalls. The 

industry, however, estimates that the 

new testing will result in at least 24 

additional recalls annually and perhaps 

as many as 48 additional recalls. 

According to the commenter, using 

Agency data, those added recalls will 

cost the industry between $72 million 

and $144 million annually. 

Response: For FSIS testing, the 

establishments have to hold products 

that screened positive, and therefore 

there should be no recalls. Recalls 

should only happen when 

establishments failed to hold positive 

products from their own testing. Since 

FSIS started testing in June 2012, there 

have been only two Class-I recalls 

associated with raw beef products with 

non-O157 STEC, and in both cases 

products were recalled before any 

illness was reported. These early-stage 

recalls actually carried the benefit of 

preventing potential outbreaks and 

outbreak-related recalls, which are more 

costly to the industry as well as the 

consumers and the government. The 

goal of the new policy is to better ensure 

that adulterated product does not enter 

commerce and, hence, will not have to 

be recalled. 

Comment: A trade association 

representing the meat industry 

suggested that there will be significant 

impact on a significant number of small 

and very small businesses from 

increased cost of raw materials, holding 

tested product, resources needed for 

supporting documentation, validation, 

and verification that current control 

programs for O157 are effective against 

the six additional STEC strains, and 

from reassessing HACCP plans. 

Response: Any increase in the cost of 

raw materials would be borne by large 

establishments as well. The Agency 

believes that the increased cost from 

holding the tested product because of 

additional testing and additional 

positive samples will not be significant 

because Agency test data for FY 2013 

showed that the screen positive sample 

rate for non-O157 STEC in beef 

manufacturing trimming is only 2 

percent. The cost of documentation and 

reassessment of HACCP plans will be 

minimal too, as the small and very small 

businesses have to reassess their HACCP 

plans at least annually. Again, a focus 

on preventing contamination is likely to 

be more effective than reliance on 

testing. 

Comment: A trade association 

representing the meat industry has 

estimated that the cost per test is $19, 

plus an additional $9 if the sample is a 

presumptive positive during the screen. 

An estimate for final confirmatory 

testing was not completed by the 

commenter, as the commenter noted 

that the beef industry generally makes 

disposition decisions based upon 

potential positive results. 

Response: The cost per test is more 

complicated than just one dollar figure. 

There are many methodologies available 

to the industry, and some 

establishments use different 

methodologies for different time-periods 

(such as high-prevalence season and 

other time-periods). For those 

establishments that are already testing 

for E. coli O157:H7, adding non-O157 

will, in most cases, involve switching to 

new test kits. Market information and 

Agency expert opinion indicate that the 

new test kits will only cost about $1 or 

$2 more per test. If an establishment has 

to contract out to a different laboratory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

68846 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Notices 

for non-O157 STEC analysis, we used 

$30 for average cost per test based on 

the cost of FSIS testing methodology, 

which is available in the market for the 

industry. 

Comment: Some countries exporting 

beef that commented have estimated the 

direct cost increase to be around $2.4 

million per annum for new non-O157 

STEC testing. Three commenters from 

Australia stated that the costs will be 

significant; two of them said that the 

cost of testing, storage, and 

documentation could amount to AUD 

1.8 million per annum. One commenter 

from another country stated that having 

to test United States-destined trimmings 

for non-O157 STEC as well as for E. coli 

O157:H7 would impose an additional 

multi-million dollar cost burden. 

Response: FSIS does not require 

foreign establishments to test, just as we 

did not require domestic establishments 

to test. The foreign establishments, as 

well as the U.S. establishments, have 

many alternatives to control for nonO157 STECs. It is the foreign 

establishments’ business decision as to 

what control measure(s) will be the 

most cost-effective for them to adopt. 

FSIS testing policy does not create any 

unfair burden on the foreign 

establishments. 

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, gender, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, 

sexual orientation, and marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to 

all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for 

communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s Target Center at 

202–720–2600 (voice and TTY). 

To file a written complaint of 

discrimination, write USDA, Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call 

202–720–5964 (voice and TTY). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer. 

Additional Public Notification 

Public awareness of all segments of 

rulemaking and policy development is 

important. Consequently, FSIS will 

announce it on-line through the FSIS 

Web page located at: http://www.fsis.

usda.gov/federal-register. 

FSIS also will make copies of this 

Federal Register publication available 

through the FSIS Constituent Update, 

which is used to provide information 

regarding FSIS policies, procedures, 

regulations, Federal Register notices, 

FSIS public meetings, and other types of 

information that could affect or would 

be of interest to our constituents and 

stakeholders. The Update is available on 

the FSIS Web page. Through the Web 

page, FSIS is able to provide 

information to a much broader, more 

diverse audience. In addition, FSIS 

offers an email subscription service 

which provides automatic and 

customized access to selected food 

safety news and information. This 

service is available at http://www.fsis.

usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from 

recalls, export information, regulations, 

directives, and notices. Customers can 

add or delete subscriptions themselves, 

and have the option to password protect 

their accounts. 

Done, at Washington, DC, November 14, 

2014. 

Alfred V. Almanza, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27418 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P 

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, United States Department 

of 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) 2015, 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 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 January 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submissions must be made 

by email at vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov to the 

Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment 

Program; National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

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 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-fsvmcoalition.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 

U.S. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES