A New Approach for Managing Swine Brucellosis and Swine Pseudorabies Virus:

Veterinary Services’ Proposed Action Plan

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Veterinary Services

Executive Summary

The swine industry within the United States contains three distinct segments. Most domestic 

swine are produced in biosecure operations. Such swine have minimal, if any, contact with 

wildlife, and usually commingle only with other swine moving in the same market channels.

(Occasionally, these swine may commingle with other swine at fairs, events, exhibitions, and 

markets.) We refer to such swine as commercial production swine. 

Other domestic swine are produced under less secure conditions that may allow a greater degree

of exposure to wildlife. We refer to such swine as transitional production swine. In addition, in 

certain States, captive feral swine are captured and moved interstate. 

The number of commercial production swine that are moved interstate yearly dwarfs the 

aggregate number of transitional production swine and captive feral swine moved interstate. 

However, because wildlife, in general, and feral swine, in particular, are known to be reservoirs 

of several diseases of swine, including swine brucellosis (SB) and pseudorabies virus (PRV), the 

interstate movement of transitional production swine and feral swine is considered a higher risk 

pathway for the spread of diseases of swine than that of commercial production swine. 

SB and PRV are serious diseases of swine that can infect other species. These diseases can have 

adverse consequences for animal health, public health (for SB), interstate movement, and trade. 

Through initiatives involving Federal, State, Tribal, and industry cooperation, both PRV and SB 

have been eradicated from commercial production swine herds. However, the diseases still exist 

in feral swine and are often found in transitional production swine.

This document presents the current thinking of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s 

Veterinary Services (VS) about possible changes to the SB and PRV programs. While U.S. 

commercial production swine herds were recognized as PRV-free in 2004 and all States have 

been considered free of SB since early 2011, both diseases still exist in wildlife reservoirs, which 

are neither monitored nor managed under current regulations. Federal, State, Tribal, and industry 

representatives have a vested interest in keeping these diseases out of commercial swine, and in 

reducing the number of infected swine discovered in transitional production herds. To achieve 

these goals, a new approach is necessary.

This new approach would enable VS, States, and Tribes to address current disease challenges by

doing the following:

 Combining the PRV and SB programs into a single streamlined program

 Creating a comprehensive, risk-based, flexible regulatory framework for PRV and SB 
2

 Enhancing SB and PRV surveillance 

 Transitioning away from the current State classification system

 Revising requirements for laboratories conducting official testing

 Modernizing the indemnity regulations for the two diseases 

To succeed, this new approach will require VS’ continued partnership with State animal health 

and wildlife officials, other Federal agencies, Tribal officials, industry, international partners, 

academia, and other stakeholders. Successful partnerships will allow us to use available 

resources efficiently to achieve program objectives, minimize disease transmission risks, and 

protect the nation’s swine herd.

The proposed approach offers several benefits. States and Tribes will be able to concentrate 

resources on minimizing the risk of disease introduction and spread and will have a variety of 

options for responding to outbreaks. The new approach will also reduce current confusion about 

the interaction between the SB and PRV regulatory programs. Stakeholders and regulators will 

have the flexibility to use up-to-date science to fit changing situations. Lastly, the approach is 

consistent with revisions to VS’ bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis programs, and is in keeping 

with VS’ intent to make its domestic animal health programs more performance based, less 

prescriptive, and more flexible.1 

Introduction: The Need for Change

PRV and SB are serious swine diseases. Their spread through the U.S. commercial herd (all 

swine that move in commerce, but particularly commercial production swine) could significantly 

harm the U.S. swine industry. Federal, State, Tribal, and industry partners have successfully 

eliminated these diseases from commercial production swine herds, but, because of the existence 

of these diseases in feral swine and, to a lesser extent, transitional production swine, the risk of 

disease spread throughout the U.S. commercial swine herd remains. The regulatory framework 

needs to be updated to address the following aspects of swine health and marketing. 

Risk from feral swine. Although commercial production swine in the United States are free of 

SB and PRV, both diseases are sometimes detected in transitional production swine and are 

known to be endemic in feral swine.

Feral swine pose the greatest disease threat to commercial swine herds within the United States. 

At least 38 States2have feral swine populations, and the overall feral swine population keeps 

expanding. Feral swine that are infected with SB or PRV present a direct risk of transmitting

these diseases to any transitional production swine allowed contact with them. In addition,

because transitional production swine sometimes commingle with commercial production swine

at fairs, exhibitions, and markets, among other locations, feral swine present an attenuated risk of 

introducing SB and PRV into commercial production swine herds. 

 

1

See “Proposed Bovine Tuberculosis and Brucellosis Draft Regulatory Framework. Available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0044-0001.

2 Wyckoff, C.A., Henke, S.E, Campbell, T.A., Hewitt, D.G., VerCauteren, K.C. 2009. Feral swine contact with domestic swine: 

a serologic survey and assessment of potential for disease transmission. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 45: 422–429
3

The current system, however, was not constructed with an eye towards the substantive risk that 

feral swine can present of introducing SB and PRV into commercial herds, but rather towards 

responding to SB and PRV in commercial production swine herds whenever the diseases are 

detected. Accordingly, the current system needs substantive revision to allow Federal, State, 

Tribal, and industry partners to move beyond eradicating the diseases in commercial production 

swine towards a program that focuses on mitigating the risk of disease introduction.

Interstate movement. Under current VS regulations, swine may move interstate under a 

protocol that was developed before PRV and SB were eradicated from commercial production 

swine herds. For example, current Federal regulations for interstate movement of swine include 

provisions based on widespread vaccine use. Such provisions need to be updated.

On a related point, under the current regulations and program standards, a State is considered 

free of SB and PRV if its commercial production swine herds are free of the diseases. Yet, when 

a State has disease-free status, all swine, including transitional production swine and even

captive feral swine, within the State are considered free of the diseases and are eligible for 

interstate movement without restriction. Therefore, a State’s status may not truly represent the 

risk posed by all types of swine when these animals move interstate. 

Regulatory flexibility. The lack of flexibility of current regulations does not allow States to 

respond to State-specific PRV and SB risks. Prescriptive regulations also do not encourage States 

to use new surveillance tools to monitor reservoirs and reduce the risk of disease transmission. 

The process to develop new regulations or modify existing ones is lengthy. The rigid 

requirements for PRV and SB currently in the regulations thus cannot adapt easily to changes in 

science and technology, disease risk, industry practices, and animal movement. Developing a 

flexible, results-based regulatory framework will make program changes easier to implement 

while still allowing for review and comment by stakeholders. 

Program consistency. Indemnity regulations for SB, found in title 9 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (9 CFR) part 51, differ in several substantive ways from the regulations for 

indemnity for PRV, found in 9 CFR part 52. The SB indemnity regulations prescribe a set value 

for the animals, whereas the PRV indemnity regulations allow payment of fair market value. In 

addition, the PRV indemnity regulations also allow for the payment of costs associated with 

destroying the animals, while the SB indemnity regulations do not. The swine disease 

indemnification process needs to be made simpler and more consistent to ensure swift herd 

depopulation if it is needed to control disease.

It is time to address these diseases through a combined, consistent approach.

The Proposed Framework: A New Approach

This document describes a proposed framework for a combined PRV and SB regulatory program

that will do the following:

1. Streamline swine regulatory programs
4

2. Enhance surveillance activities

3. Transition the PRV and SB program from a prevalence-based State status classification 

system to a science-based approach that addresses disease risk 

4. Outline the proposed conditions for interstate movement of swine

5. Modernize indemnity provisions

6. Improve laboratory methods 

1. Streamline swine regulatory programs

Combining the PRV and SB Programs into One Program

VS wants to work with stakeholders to streamline the SB and PRV programs and address the risk 

that feral swine pose to all swine destined to move interstate. Merging the SB and PRV programs 

into a single swine health program will create consistency in dealing with these two diseases. 

The regulations for the new program would be found in 9 CFR part 85 and would supplant the 

existing SB regulations in 9 CFR part 78 and the existing PRV regulations in 9 CFR part 85.

VS believes that this combined program could be structured around an approach similar to the 

one being considered for a combined cattle tuberculosis and brucellosis program, which focuses 

on disease risk. Each State and, if they so choose, Tribe would assess the risk of PRV and SB 

introduction in swine destined for interstate movement and determine a method to reduce the risk 

of shipping diseased animals interstate. These risks will vary, depending in large part on the 

existence or size of the feral swine population in that State or Tribe. The regulations would be 

predicated on the fact that PRV and SB could be introduced from feral swine into commercial

swine populations, either directly (for transitional production swine) or indirectly (for 

commercial production swine).

This risk-based approach aligns with VS’ vision for its regulatory programs and parallels the 

approach currently being considered for the bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis regulations. It

also provides regulatory flexibility to keep pace with changing science and the speed of business. 

Swine Health Plans

Under a risk-based approach, States would have to develop and implement a Swine Health Plan 

(SHP) to address and minimize the risk that swine from their State may spread PRV and SB

when moving interstate. Out of recognition of Tribal sovereignty, we would also allow Tribes to 

submit Tribal SHPs for activities conducted on their lands; however, Tribes would not be 

required to submit such plans. If a Tribe does not submit a plan, the Tribe would fall under the 

regulatory purview of the State in which the Tribal lands reside. All State and Tribal plans 

would be submitted to VS for review and approval.

We propose that State and Tribal plans contain the following:

 A description of the State or Tribal swine industry. This description would cover the 

types of swine industries in the State or Tribe, the markets for swine, and the types of

other operations (such as hunt clubs or corporate farming).
5

 An outline or description of the possible sources for PRV or SB being introduced into the 

State’s or Tribe’s commercial herds, which we would define as all swine destined to 

move interstate from the State for any purpose, including movements to exhibitions, fairs, 

or hunting grounds. (Thus, within their SHPs, States would have to address any sources 

of possible disease introduction into transitional production swine or captive feral swine 

destined to move interstate.)

 The surveillance and recordkeeping methods the State or Tribe plans to use to reasonably

ensure that swine that move interstate from the State or Tribe will not transmit PRV or 

SB. At a minimum, States and Tribes would have to adopt the surveillance and reporting

procedures and standards in VS’ Comprehensive National Surveillance Plan. (This plan, 

which we discuss at greater length later in this document, contains information for 

surveillance activities that are necessary for all States, as well as any Tribes that submit 

SHPs.) States and Tribes would also be free to conduct additional surveillance activities 

beyond those required by VS if they consider those surveillance activities necessary to 

ensure animals moving interstate will not spread the diseases. 

 The measures the State or Tribe would take to control or manage a disease outbreak 

within commercial herds to prevent disease spread. This response should include the 

epidemiological investigation process as well as the quarantine and zoning procedures.

 A signed agreement by a responsible person for the State or Tribe to allow VS to make 

the plan publicly available, and to reevaluate and amend the SHP if adverse consequences 

occur such as a disease outbreak. 

VS would review each plan to ensure it contains the information listed above. This review could 

include dialog with the State or Tribe, and guidance in helping the State or Tribe revise the plan 

to address deficiencies or clarify its provisions. Once VS considers the plan to be complete and 

adequate, VS would publish a notice in the Federal Register letting the public know that the 

State or Tribe’s plan is available online for review and public comment. If no comments are 

received on the plan or if the comments do not affect the initial determination that the plan is 

complete and adequate, VS would approve the plan and consider the State or Tribe a consistent 

State or Tribe. (We discuss State and Tribal statuses at greater length on page 7.) Notification of 

this approval would be published in the Federal Register.

VS envisions that States and Tribes may consider it necessary to amend their plan as 

circumstances warrant. We also consider it possible that VS will identify deficiencies in the plan 

after it is implemented. For example, an outbreak of PRV or SB in a commercial herd could 

reveal that a State has failed to consider a potential source of disease risk. In such instances, 

APHIS would require the State or Tribe to amend its plan to retain consistent status. Conversely, 

any amendments to a plan initiated by a State or Tribe would need VS approval. 

States and Tribes would not need to resubmit plans annually, but VS believes there should be a 

process to ensure that States and Tribes have implemented their plans. Accordingly, VS could

audit a State or Tribe’s implementation or maintenance of a plan. Similarly, there would be a 

mechanism for removing approval of a plan and redesignating the State or Tribe to a lower State 

or Tribal classification. Any of the following could be grounds to rescind approval of a State or 

Tribal plan and redesignate the State or Tribe:

 Allowing diseased animals to be moved interstate for purposes other than slaughter.
6

 Failing to implement or maintain the surveillance activities described in the plan.

 Failing to respond to an outbreak of PRV or SB in commercial herds in the manner 

specified in the plan. 

 Refusing to amend the plan in response to a VS request.

Communication to Stakeholders 

Stakeholders would be notified if a State or Tribe loses approval of its SHP through a Federal 

Register notice. This notice would list the reasons for the removal and allow for public comment. 

This notice would also redesignate the State or Tribe to inconsistent status (see below). 

2. Enhance Surveillance Activities

Crafting a Comprehensive National Surveillance Plan

Currently, there is a national surveillance plan for PRV. This plan specifies that States should 

conduct surveillance of swine that have exhibited clinical symptoms of infection, surveillance of 

transitional production swine herds, and slaughter surveillance. (VS refers to these different

types of surveillance as surveillance streams.) National surveillance for SB currently consists 

primarily of slaughter surveillance, which is conducted by VS in conjunction with the Food 

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and State and Tribal animal health officials; however, VS 

is preparing a national surveillance plan that incorporates additional surveillance streams that 

must be monitored.

VS proposes to consolidate the national surveillance plans for both diseases into a 

Comprehensive National Surveillance Plan for swine. The goals of this comprehensive plan 

would be to rapidly detect disease and to demonstrate disease freedom to facilitate interstate and 

international trade of commercial production swine. The plan would specify the surveillance 

streams that will be monitored at the Federal level, the surveillance streams that all States and 

any Tribes that submit an SHP must monitor at the State and Tribal level, and the minimum 

required annual level of surveillance necessary for each of these latter streams. 

In addition, in drafting their plans, States and Tribes may incorporate additional surveillance 

streams specific to the State or Tribe as part of their mitigation strategy to address the risk of 

transmission of PRV or SB from sources of these diseases to commercial swine. For example, a 

State with seasonal events in which there is high-density commingling of swine from multiple 

premises throughout the State, such as a State fair or expo, may specify that monitoring these 

events is part of their mitigation strategy for SB and PRV. 

In turn, whenever VS approves an SHP that contains such additional surveillance streams, VS 

will incorporate these State- or Tribe-specific surveillance streams into the Comprehensive 

National Surveillance Plan. (Among other benefits, this will allow the comprehensive plan to 

more accurately demonstrate the full range of domestic surveillance activities to international 

trading partners.) Conversely, VS would monitor and give States and Tribes surveillance 

information from the VS- and FSIS-supported surveillance activities specified in the 

Comprehensive Surveillance Plan to aid in their surveillance efforts.
7

This approach stands in contrast to historical practices within VS’ SB and PRV programs. While 

these programs were focused on eradicating the disease, surveillance efforts focused primarily, 

and sometimes exclusively, on slaughter surveillance. Such efforts serve well to remove diseased 

commercial production swine from market channels, but are not aimed at rapid disease detection, 

which would entail surveillance at earlier stages in the production cycle of commercial 

production swine and targeted surveillance of at-risk production swine populations. 

Reducing the Reporting Burden on States

For PRV, States currently must report yearly that they have met the surveillance requirements 

specified in the Pseudorabies Program Standards and must draft a plan describing how the State 

will preclude feral swine from introducing PRV into commercial swine herds within the State. 

Additionally, States considered validated SB-free must submit triennial (once every 3 years) 

reports describing SB surveillance activities per requirements specified in 9 CFR part 78.1.

VS proposes to simplify this process. VS would originally review each State or Tribe’s SHP to 

ensure completeness. Subsequently, VS would review the plan if requested by the State or Tribe 

or as part of an audit. States and Tribes with SHPs would be required to report on a regular basis 

on any surveillance efforts specified within their SHP that exceed the minimum required as part 

of the Comprehensive National Surveillance Plan, on any occurrences of PRV or SB within 

commercial herds in the State or Tribe, and as specified during an audit.

Therefore, in most instances, after development and approval of a State or Tribe’s plan, only 

additional State or Tribal surveillance activities specified by the State or Tribe within its plan and 

any occurrences of PRV or SB in commercial herds would need to be reported. 

3. Transition Away from Prevalence-based State Status

Under the current State status system, all producers in a State are affected when a State loses free 

status, even if the producers are hundreds of miles from any outbreak. Under our proposal, this 

would no longer be the case. Conversely, disease risks may exist even if the State is labeled free,

as evidenced by occasional findings of PRV and SB in transitional production swine. The new 

approach would emphasize how a State or Tribe addresses this risk. 

Instead of having status based on the prevalence of disease within a State or tribe, States and 

Tribes would be classified by whether they have an approved SHP in place. A State or Tribe with 

a VS-approved SHP would be classified as consistent.

A State or Tribe that fails to implement or maintain certain provisions of its SHP that are not 

mitigation measures in and of themselves (for example, a State or Tribe that conducts proactive 

surveillance of transitional production swine but fails to meet the surveillance levels specified in 

its SHP) would be redesignated as provisionally consistent. We would also redesignate States 

and Tribes as provisionally consistent if they failed to turn in reports regarding additional 

surveillance or disease outbreaks within a specified time period.
8

Provisionally consistent States or Tribes would be given a time period specified by VS to take 

appropriate remedial measures or turn in outstanding reports. If the State or Tribe takes these 

measures or turns in these reports within the specified time period, they would regain consistent 

status. If not, they would be redesignated as inconsistent. 

A State without a VS-approved SHP would also be classified as inconsistent. In addition, a State 

or Tribe that loses APHIS approval for its plan, or that has repeatedly failed to turn in required 

reports, would be redesignated as inconsistent.

All designations and redesignations would be announced through notices in the Federal Register.

4. Interstate Movement 

Implementation of the SHP approach will necessitate substantive changes to the current 

requirements for interstate movement of swine. We envision conditions for movement for three 

classes of swine.

Infected swine. Swine infected with PRV or SB could be moved interstate only if they are 

moved directly to a recognized slaughter establishment in an officially sealed conveyance, 

accompanied by a permit, and individually identified in accordance with the official 

identification standards prescribed for swine in 9 CFR 71.19. These provisions would allow for 

the slaughter of infected animals in establishments that choose to take them. These conditions for 

movement exist in the regulations today and would remain unchanged.

Exposed swine. The second set of conditions would set parameters for movement of exposed 

swine. Exposed swine could move directly to slaughter under the conditions described in the 

previous paragraph for infected swine. Alternatively, exposed swine could move to quarantined 

feedlots. Even though quarantined feedlots are not currently used, the concept already exists in 9 

CFR 85.5. VS would modify the existing requirements to provide that swine intended for 

interstate movement would have to be tested for PRV and SB. Exposed swine that test negative

would have to move interstate within the time specified by State, Tribal, or Federal officials and 

be accompanied by a permit that contains the quarantine status of the farm of origin, the date of 

the official tests, and approval from the State or Tribal animal health official of the State or Tribe

receiving the swine. The swine would also have to be identified in accordance with 9 CFR 71.19 

and move directly to their final destinations. 

Should an outbreak of PRV or SB occur, exposed swine may need to be moved interstate to a 

feedlot to ensure their safety and well-being, or for other reasons. VS proposes, however, that 

individual State and Tribal animal health officials make the final decision whether to allow 

official quarantine feedlots in their State or Tribe. Additionally, those animal health officials 

would have the authority to make a science- and risk-based determination for their State or Tribe

regarding whether exposed swine may be moved into their jurisdiction. States or Tribes would 
9

not, however, be authorized to prohibit the transit of exposed swine through their State or Tribe 

to a quarantine feedlot in another State or Tribe. 

In the unlikely event of a PRV or SB outbreak, this approach, which is modeled after the 

approach VS currently employs with regard to captive cervids exposed to chronic wasting 

disease, gives States and Tribes authority over movement of exposed swine into their State or 

Tribe for feeding purposes, while not interfering with commerce between other States or Tribes. 

Swine not infected or exposed. The third set of movement conditions would be for all other 

swine: swine that are neither infected with nor exposed to PRV or SB. These conditions would 

be based on whether the State or Tribe has an approved SHP and, if not, whether the herd is 

eligible for movement (Appendix 1). Swine from consistent States and Tribes could move 

interstate if accompanied by a certificate of veterinary inspection and identified in accordance 

with 9 CFR 71.19. 

These conditions would pertain to all swine moved interstate from a consistent State or Tribe, 

whether they are commercial production swine, transitional production swine, or captive feral 

swine. This is because, if APHIS approves a State or Tribe’s animal health plan, this approval 

will be based on a determination that the State or Tribe has specified surveillance activities in the 

plan that provide adequate assurances that any swine moved from the State or Tribe, regardless 

of herd of origin, will not contribute to the spread of SB or PRV.

Swine from provisionally consistent States and Tribes could be subject to certain movement 

restrictions while the State or Tribe is still within the time period specified by VS to take 

remedial measures. 

Swine from inconsistent States and Tribes that are not from a movement-eligible or qualifiednegative herd would need to be tested for both PRV and SB with negative results before 

movement. Swine from inconsistent States and Tribes but originating from movement-eligible or 

qualified-negative herds would require a certificate of veterinary inspection and official 

identification or would have to be moved within a swine production system in accordance with 9 

CFR 71.19, but could be moved interstate without testing before movement. VS would retain the 

concepts outlined in the 2003 PRV program standards for considering a herd to be qualified 

negative. We outline requirements for both movement-eligible herds and qualified-negative 

herds in Appendix 2 of this document. 

5. Modernize Indemnity

Current indemnity regulations for SB and PRV are inconsistent and often lead to confusion. Such 

confusion is understandable, since indemnity paid for swine infected with SB may vary 

significantly from indemnity paid for swine infected with PRV. 

To remove differences between the programs that are no longer warranted, and to ensure that our 

indemnity policies for SB and PRV (and any other indemnifiable disease of swine) are consistent 

and up to date, VS proposes to consolidate the SB and PRV indemnity regulations into one part 
10

of 9 CFR. The provisions in this revised part would apply not only to SB and PRV, but to any 

swine disease approved by the Administrator for indemnity and listed on VS’ Web site. To 

ensure all stakeholders are notified, VS will publish a notice in the Federal Register any time a 

disease is added or removed from the list, which will initially contain only SB and PRV.

Instead of listing prescriptive values for swine, as currently specified in the SB indemnity 

regulations, the regulations would be updated to allow for payment of up to fair market value, as 

currently specified in the PRV regulations and calculated by an indemnity calculator. Moreover, 

producers would be able to receive up to 100 percent of the costs of destroying and disposing of 

swine infected with SB, PRV, or any other indemnifiable disease of swine approved by the 

Administrator. This is currently true only for swine infected with PRV.

6. Improve Laboratory Methods

VS understands that a successful disease program must use the best available science and 

technology. The laboratories that test for the diseases must be proficient to ensure confidence in 

the results. VS also understands that testing methods change as technology advances and that 

regulations describing testing techniques, methods, and procedures become obsolete faster than 

the regulatory process can keep up with changes. Therefore, to make the regulations flexible 

enough to keep pace with technology, VS proposes to modify the basic requirements for 

laboratories testing for PRV and SB.

VS proposes that laboratories testing for PRV and SB use official tests. VS would post on the VS

Web site all official tests approved by the Administrator. This would allow VS to update those 

tests, including additions and removal, without changing the CFR.

VS would require that tests for PRV and SB be performed in approved laboratories. Procedures 

for becoming an approved laboratory and standards for those laboratories would be posted on the 

VS Web site and may include those required for National Animal Health Laboratory Network 

laboratories. For example, any laboratory testing for PRV and SB may need to do the following:

 Comply with VS quality control requirements

 Have personnel qualified to conduct testing

 Follow VS testing protocols 

 Pass proficiency requirements for laboratory personnel

 Report testing results to State and Federal authorities

 Send all presumptive positive tests to NVSL for analysis

Roles and Responsibilities 

The success of this new approach will depend on cooperation among Federal, State, and Tribal

animal health officials, the regulated industries, producers, and all other stakeholders. 

Federal animal health officials will need to: 
11

 Develop and revise regulations pertaining to the interstate movement of swine

 Develop the program standards and other policy documents, including guidelines, to 

assist States and Tribes with understanding the new requirements and regulatory 

standards

 Continue implementing the PRV National Surveillance Plan in States and Tribes

 Develop and implement an SB National Surveillance Plan (short-term)

 Draft and implement a Comprehensive National Surveillance Plan (long-term) 

 Provide surveillance activity information to States and Tribes

 Monitor, analyze, and report national surveillance data

 Give States, Tribes, and other stakeholders feedback and recommendations based on 

these data

 Review the SHPs of States and Tribes, perform audits, and assess the actions of States

and Tribes in implementing and maintaining those plans

 

State and Tribal animal health officials will need to:

 Develop State- and Tribe-specific SHPs

 Implement approved SHPs

 Oversee State- and Tribe-specific monitoring and surveillance activities

 Investigate, control, mitigate, and contain regulated diseases when they are identified

 Analyze the surveillance data received from VS to ensure premises moving swine 

interstate are low risk for disease

 Serve as liaisons with individual producers

Producers, industry, and other stakeholders will need to:

 Advance their knowledge about PRV and SB and the risk factors that could result in the 

introduction of disease into commercial swine herds

 Evaluate management practices to minimize risks 

 Continue to engage in discussions with State officials concerning PRV and SB programs

 Develop and implement biosecurity plans intended to prevent the introduction of these 

two diseases

Potential Obstacles to Implementing a New Approach

VS recognizes that some partners, stakeholders, and regulated industries may have concerns and 

reservations about the concepts contained in this paper. As we stated above, this paper represents 

VS’ current thinking about possible changes to the PRV and SB programs. VS thus envisions 

this paper as a discussion document. 

That being said, in formulating this approach, we discovered that several concerns were shared 

among stakeholders. We address these below. 
12

Concern 1: Some States have expressed concerns regarding the administrative burden of 

drafting a plan.

We agree that there will be certain administrative costs associated with drafting an SHP. 

However, once a State has an SHP that has been approved by VS, the State would likely 

experience a decrease in paperwork burden in comparison to the status quo. 

Currently, States must report yearly that they have met the surveillance requirements specified in 

the National Surveillance Plan for PRV and must draft a plan describing how the State will 

preclude feral swine from introducing PRV into commercial swine herds within the State. 

Additionally, States considered validated SB-free must submit triennial (once every 3 years) 

reports describing SB surveillance activities. 

In contrast, under the VS proposal, a State with an approved SHP would have to file a yearly 

report detailing surveillance efforts in the State during that previous year only if these 

surveillance efforts extended beyond the minimum surveillance required under the 

Comprehensive National Surveillance Plan. This report would provide assurances to VS that a 

State has successfully implemented and maintained the provisions of its SHP that pertain to 

surveillance. The only other reporting requirements under this new approach would occur when a 

State detects an occurrence of PRV or SB in the State, or when VS requests reporting as part of a 

compliance audit.

Concern 2: Moving away from State status may affect consumer confidence, regardless of the 

surveillance measures a State or Tribe may have in place to identify PRV- and SB-infected swine 

and to prevent disease spread.

Although, under the current program, all States and Tribes are considered free with regard to SB 

and PRV, State status is not necessarily indicative of the absence of SB and PRV in swine within 

the State. Since transitional production swine and captive feral swine within a PRV- or SB-free 

State do not have to be tested for the diseases prior to interstate movement, the current system 

allows for the potential unrestricted interstate movement of affected swine. 

VS believes that, by requiring States and Tribes to identify and assess potential sources of 

disease introduction within their SHPs, our approach will provide stakeholders with a more 

accurate indication of the actual prevalence of PRV and SB within the United States, and will 

ultimately provide greater assurances that swine moving interstate from a State or Tribe do not 

present a risk of spreading PRV or SB. 

Additionally, VS will utilize data supplied through the Comprehensive National Surveillance 

Plan to address any concerns raised by trading partners.

Concern 3: While VS approval of their State or Tribe’s plan is pending, it appears that 

producers will have to shoulder costs for testing each animal moved interstate for purposes other 

than slaughter.
13

If VS finalizes the approach in this document, there would be a substantial “phase-in” period to 

allow States and Tribes ample time to draft and seek VS approval for their SHPs. In the 

intervening period, the existing regulations would remain in effect. 

Concern 4: The current system provides a clear and unambiguous standard for State 

classification by basing them on prevalence levels. In the revised system, it seems as though 

States with disparate prevalence levels of PRV or SB could have the same consistent status.

The current standards for PRV and SB status are unambiguous, but only reflect prevalence rates 

within commercial production swine herds in the State. As such, they do not necessarily reflect 

the degree to which the diseases are present in States, particularly those with feral swine or 

transitional production swine populations. 

State and Tribal SHPs will have to specify the potential sources of PRV and SB within the State 

or Tribe, the risk of introduction of PRV and SB into swine within the State or Tribe, and the 

measures that the State or Tribe intends to take to address this risk. VS will approve an SHP only 

if we consider the measures sufficient to address this risk. State classification, then, will be based 

on our determination that a State has described measures in its SHP that adequately address the 

risk of disease introduction into swine.

VS will make all SHPs publicly available. Thus, all stakeholders will be presented with the 

opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of these measures in light of the risk of disease introduction. 

Conclusion

VS believes a combined program is needed for SB and PRV. Because all States are SB- and 

PRV-free in their biosecure commercial herds, it is time to move away from an eradication 

program. We need a program that is flexible enough to allow States and Tribes to manage and set 

safeguards necessary to protect their swine populations, yet rigorous enough to ensure that swine 

moved interstate do not present a risk of spreading PRV or SB. 

Our proposed regulatory concept will:

1. Streamline swine regulatory programs

2. Enhance surveillance activities

3. Transition the PRV and SB program from a State status classification system to a 

science-based approach that addresses disease risk

4. Outline the proposed conditions for interstate movement of swine

5. Modernize indemnity provisions

6. Improve laboratory methods 

To succeed, VS will require continued partnership from all stakeholders including State and 

Tribal animal health agencies, wildlife agencies, industry, international partners, academia, and 

other stakeholders. Successful partnerships allow VS to use available resources efficiently and as 

necessary to safeguard animal health.
14

Appendix 1: Proposed Requirements for Interstate Movement of Swine Not Infected With 

or Exposed to PRV or SB

State or Tribe

has approved 

Swine Health 

Plan?

Swine originate 

from movement 

eligible herds 

within the State

or Tribe?

Movement Requirements

Yes N/A

 Issuance of a certificate of veterinary 

inspection

 Identification in accordance with 9 CFR 71.19

No No

 Testing of all swine destined for movement for 

PRV and SB, with negative results from an 

official laboratory

 Issuance of a certificate of veterinary 

inspection

 Identification in accordance with 9 CFR 71.19

No Yes

 Issuance of a certificate of veterinary 

inspection

 Identification in accordance with 9 CFR 71.19
15

Appendix 2: Certified Swine Herds 

Movement-Eligible Herds

VS is proposing that herds electing to participate as a movement-eligible herd will need to 

comply with the following proposed requirements. These proposed requirements vary depending 

on a State’s or Tribe’s status.

Consistent and Provisionally Consistent States or Tribes

All swine in a consistent or provisionally consistent State or Tribe that are not under quarantine 

are considered movement eligible without restriction. Swine being moved would need to comply 

with all traceability and movement requirements.

Inconsistent States or Tribes

If a producer’s State or Tribe is inconsistent, the producer may elect to test his or her swine herds 

to receive movement-eligible certification. If a producer’s herd is movement eligible, the 

producer may move swine from that herd interstate without testing each swine individually. 

To obtain movement eligibility, VS proposes that serological statistical tests equivalent to 

providing a 95 percent confidence level of detecting a 5 percent PRV or SB infection rate in a 

herd would need to be performed on a routine basis but no more than semiannually (two times a 

year). Testing that the producer has done to meet State requirements or for marketing purposes 

could count towards this VS testing requirement, if the producer provides adequate 

documentation of this testing to VS. To assist producers with testing, VS proposes to post 

guidance documents on the VS website. 

Producers who receive swine from multiple sources may obtain movement-eligible status for 

their herds if all swine are from consistent or provisionally consistent States or Tribes and the 

producer semiannually tests a sufficient number of swine that have been randomly selected from 

the entire herd sufficient to obtain a 95 confidence level of detecting a 5 percent SB or PRV 

infection rate within the herd. If the producer receives swine from an inconsistent State or Tribe, 

the producer may still obtain movement eligible status for the herd if he or she performs testing 

sufficient to provide a 95 percent confidence level of detecting a 5 percent SB or PRV infection 

rate in each group within 30 days of receiving the swine, as well as performing the semiannual 

herd test described above. 

Qualified-Negative Herds

Occasionally producers might add value to their animals by obtaining additional herd 

certifications. For example, the producer may seek to export swine to a country requiring herds 

to be qualified negative. A producer may voluntarily obtain qualified-negative herd status for 

both PRV and SB if the producer complies with requirements that are similar to those currently 

outlined and described in the 2003 PRV Program Standards. Like movement eligibility, if the 
16

producer resides within an inconsistent State or Tribe, and he or she receives a qualified-negative 

certification for the herd, the producer would not have to individually test each animal before 

moving them interstate. The producer would, however, need to comply with all other movement 

requirements of the regulations.