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

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Notices 68847 

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. 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, 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 projections 

for worsening localized shortages over 

the next 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 a survey of veterinary 

medical graduates conducted by the 

American Veterinary Medical 

Association (AVMA) in 2014, the 

average educational debt for students 

graduating from veterinary school is 

approximately $162,000. 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). 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– 

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 2015 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. 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 2014, NIFA 

received 858 applications from which 

291 VMLRP awards totaling $25,292,341 

were issued. Funding for FY 2015 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 2015 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

68848 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Notices 

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 

to vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov using 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), 

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 theoretical 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 and 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Notices 68849 

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 2015 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 2015 cycle, have an 

opportunity to do the following: (1) 

Retain designated status for any 

shortage situation successfully 

designated in 2014 (if there is no change 

to any information, the nomination will 

be approved for 2015 without the need 

for re-review by the merit panel), (2) 

rescind any nomination officially 

designated in 2014, 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 2015 review panel. 

The maximum number of 

nominations (and potential 

designations) will remain the same in 

2015 as they were for the previous five 

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 

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 2015 are available under the State 

Animal Health Officials 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 

2015 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 2015 Shortage Situation 

Nomination Process 

As described in Section 4 above, all 

SAHOs will, for the FY 2015 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 2015 review panel. The maximum 

number of nominations (and potential 

designations) for each state is the same 

in 2015 as it was in previous years. 

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 with a PDF copy of the 

nomination form of each designated 

area that went unfilled in FY 2014. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

68850 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Notices 

SAHO will then email the carry over 

nomination(s), along with any new 

nominations, to vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov by 

the published deadline. 

Both new and retained nominations 

must be submitted on the Veterinary 

Shortage Situation Nomination form 

provided in the State Animal Health 

Officials section at www.nifa.usda.gov/

vmlrp. 

6. Submission and Due Date 

Shortage situation nominations, both 

new and carry over, must be submitted 

on or before January 20, 2015, 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. NIFA will examine in the 

future the feasibility of moving this 

nomination process from paper-based to 

an electronic process. 

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 

accurate. 

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 

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 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 tricounty 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. 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-timeequivalency (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 wild 

life 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Notices 68851 

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 socioeconomic 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 

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 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. 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. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

68852 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Notices 

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. 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 substantial 

financial penalties. 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. 

f. 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 nongovernmental 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Notices 68853 

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 13th day of 

November, 2014. 

Sonny Ramaswamy, 

Director, National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27423 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of the Census 

Federal Economic Statistics Advisory 

Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census 

(U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of 

a meeting of the Federal Economic 

Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC). 

The Committee will advise the Directors 

of the Economics and Statistics 

Administration’s (ESA) two statistical 

agencies, the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis (BEA) and the Census Bureau, 

and the Commissioner of the 

Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) on statistical 

methodology and other technical 

matters related to the collection, 

tabulation, and analysis of federal 

economic statistics. Last minute changes 

to the agenda are possible, which could 

prevent giving advance public notice of 

schedule adjustments. 

DATES: December 12, 2014. The meeting 

will begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. 

and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the U.S. Census Bureau Conference 

Center, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, 

MD 20746. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James R. Spletzer, Designated Federal 

Official, Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Census Bureau, Research and 

Methodology Directorate, Room 5K175, 

4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 

20233, telephone 301–763–4069, email: 

james.r.spletzer@census.gov. For TTY 

callers, please call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 and 

give them the above listed number you 

would like to call. This service is free 

and confidential. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members 

of the FESAC are appointed by the 

Secretary of Commerce. The Committee 

advises the Directors of the BEA, the 

Census Bureau, and the Commissioner 

of the Department of Labor’s BLS, on 

statistical methodology and other 

technical matters related to the 

collection, tabulation, and analysis of 

federal economic statistics. The 

Committee is established in accordance 

with the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (Title 5, United States Code, 

Appendix 2). 

The meeting is open to the public, 

and a brief period is set aside for public 

comments and questions. Persons with 

extensive questions or statements must 

submit them in writing at least three 

days before the meeting to the 

Designated Federal Official named 

above. If you plan to attend the meeting, 

please register by Monday, December 1, 

2014. You may access the online 

registration form with the following 

link: https://www.regonline.com/fesac_

dec2014_meeting. Seating is available to 

the public on a first-come, first-served 

basis. 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should also be directed to 

the Designated Federal Official as soon 

as known, and preferably two weeks 

prior to the meeting. 

Due to increased security and for 

access to the meeting, please call 301– 

763–9906 upon arrival at the Census 

Bureau on the day of the meeting. A 

photo ID must be presented in order to 

receive your visitor’s badge. Visitors are 

not allowed beyond the first floor. 

Dated: November 13, 2014. 

John H. Thompson, 

Director, Bureau of the Census. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27438 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Economic Development Administration 

Notice of Petitions by Firms for 

Determination of Eligibility To Apply 

for Trade Adjustment Assistance 

AGENCY: Economic Development 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice and opportunity for 

public comment. 

Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade 

Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 

et seq.), the Economic Development 

Administration (EDA) has received 

petitions for certification of eligibility to 

apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 

from the firms listed below. 

Accordingly, EDA has initiated 

investigations to determine whether 

increased imports into the United States 

of articles like or directly competitive 

with those produced by each of these 

firms contributed importantly to the 

total or partial separation of the firm’s 

workers, or threat thereof, and to a 

decrease in sales or production of each 

petitioning firm. 

LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

[11/4/2014 through 11/13/2014] 

Firm name Firm address 

Date 

accepted for 

investigation 

Product(s) 

ETM Enterprises I, Inc., d/b/a ETM 

Enterprises, Inc.

920 N. Clinton Street, Grand 

Ledge, MI 48837.

11/13/2014 The firm manufactures compression molded fiberglass reinforced plastic parts for heavy-duty transportation vehicles. 

Gulf Fish, Inc. ................................. 5885 Highway 311, Houma, LA 

70360.

11/13/2014 The firm processes shrimp and prawn for consumption. 

Ingersoll CM Systems, LLC ........... 3505 Centennial Drive, Midland, 

MI 48642.

11/12/2014 The firm manufactures machine tool equipment for 

crankshaft and camshaft machining lines. 

Pioneer Service, Inc. ...................... 542 W. Factory Road, Addison, IL 

33272.

11/12/2014 The firm manufactures machined metal parts and 

components. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES