Ch. 13— Federal Regulation of Animal Use • 277 
pal pounds and shelters, and “duly authorized 
agents of local governments,” rather than having 
to acquire animals only from licensed dealers. Re- 
search facilities were defined to include "major 
research facilities and exclude the thousands of 
hospitals, clinics, and schools which use other ani- 
mals for research and tests,” though research or 
experimentation included use of animals as teach- 
ing aids in educational institutions associated with 
major research facilities. 
A specific and unequivocal exemption from 
newly devised standards for humane treatment 
for actual research activities was included. USDA 
jurisdiction over research activities was confined 
to care and treatment of research animals in an 
institution's holding facilities . The drafters of the 
bill were careful to point out that the exemption 
of research procedures was not to be compro- 
mised. The conference report stated the legisla- 
tion’s intent was (38): 
... to provide protection for the researcher in 
this matter by exempting from regulation all ani- 
mals during actual research or experimentation, 
as opposed to the pre- and post -research treat- 
ment. It is not the intention of the committee to 
interfere in any way with research or experi- 
mentation . . . [T]he Secretary is not authorized 
to prescribe standards for the handling, care, or 
treatment of animals during actual research or 
experimentation by a research facility. The im- 
portant determination of when an animal is in 
actual research so as to be exempt from regula- 
tions under the bill is left to the research facility, 
but such determination must be made in good 
faith. 
Regarding the power to require regular record- 
keeping and to inspect premises to assure compli- 
ance, the committee intended: 
. . . that these inspectors will be employees of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture . . . [and that) in- 
spectors not be permitted to interfere with the 
carrying out of actual research or experimenta- 
tion as determined by a research facility . . . [and) 
that inspection ... be specifically limited to searches 
for lost and stolen pets by officers of the law (not 
owners themselves) and that legally constituted 
law enforcement authorities means agencies with 
general law enforcement authority and not those 
agencies whose law enforcement duties are lim- 
ited to enforcing local animal regulations . It is not 
intended that this section be used by private citi- 
zens to harass or interfere in any way with the 
carrying out of research or experimentation. Such 
officers cannot inspect the animals when the ani- 
mals are undergoing actual research or experi- 
mentation. 
Unlike dealers, research facilities were subject only 
to civil penalties (a fine of up to $500 for each of- 
fense) for violation of the act. 
In the Senate committee’s report on its version 
of the bill leading to the act, comments from rele- 
vant executive agencies were included. The De- 
partments of Commerce and the Treasury and the 
Federal Aviation Administration deferred to the 
views of USDA and the Department of Health, Edu- 
cation, and Welfare (DHEW). The Under Secretary 
of DHEW opposed licensure for research facilities 
and restrictions on procurement by them of experi- 
mental subjects from other than licensed sources. 
Noting that the agency charged with enforcing the 
new law would be USDA, the letter expressed sup- 
port “for sound legislation to alleviate abuses which 
now exist in the transportation, purchase, sale, 
and handling of animals intended for use in re- 
search laboratories.” The Secretary of Agriculture 
responded as follows (38): 
This Department conducts programs in re- 
search related to animal production and animal 
diseases. In addition, it is charged with the admin- 
istration of programs for the control and eradi- 
cation of infectious, contagious, and communica- 
ble diseases of livestock and poultry; for the 
prevention of the introduction and dissemination 
[in) the United States of such diseases; and for 
the prevention of the exportation of diseased live- 
stock and poultry. It also administers laws re- 
garding the humane slaughter and treatment of 
livestock. 
. . . There are many State laws covering [illicit 
traffic in family pets) and licensing requirements 
pertaining to dogs are common. Since the oper- 
ating methods of people who steal family pets and 
the commercial aspects of the purchase and trans- 
fer of dogs and cats in commerce are not areas 
as to which this Department has expertise, we 
are unable to evaluate the effectiveness of exist- 
ing State laws. In respect to animals, the func- 
tions of this Department relate basically to live- 
stock and poultry. Accordingly, there is a question 
as to whether it would not be desirable that a law 
such as that in question be administered bv a Fed- 
