278 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
eral agency more directly concerned and having 
greater expertise with respect to the subject than 
this Department. 
USD A estimated that administration of the act 
would cost approximately $2 million per year. It 
was authorized to assess "reasonable” fees for 
licenses issued. Judging that the exact cost was 
undeterminable, because it was not known how 
many new dealers would be licensed, Congress 
included a general authorization for appropria- 
tions (38). 
1970 Amendments 
Continued allegations of poor treatment of ani- 
mals by unregulated parties and expressions of 
concern for experimental animals besides dogs and 
cats prompted Congress to pass the Animal Wel- 
fare Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-579) to cover a 
broader class of animals, including those exhibited 
to the public and sold at auction, and to regulate 
anyone engaged in those activities. 
The amendments broadened the 1966 act’s cov- 
erage beyond dogs, cats, monkeys, guinea pigs, 
hamsters, and rabbits to protect all warm-blooded 
animals as the Secretary of Agriculture may de- 
termine are being used for research, testing, ex- 
perimentation, exhibition, or as pets. Excluded spe- 
cifically from the new definition were horses not 
used for research and other livestock, poultry, and 
farm animals used for food or fiber production 
(7 U.S.C. 2132(g)). The 1970 amendments define 
the word "animal” as: 
. . . any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman 
primate animal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or 
other such warm-blooded animal, as the Secre- 
tary may determine is being used, or is intended 
for use, for research, testing, experimentation, 
or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. 
The act does not appear to give the Secretary 
the discretion to determine that a warm-blooded 
animal used for experimentation is not an "ani- 
mal” for purposes of the act . The act gives the Sec- 
retary the authority to determine only whether 
or not a warm-blooded animal is being used or is 
intended for use for experimentation or another 
named purpose. If the warm-blooded animal is 
judged as being used in that way, it is an "animal” 
under the act’s coverage (6). 
In 19 77, the Secretary promulgated regulations 
that specifically excluded rats, mice, birds, and 
horses and other farm animals from the defini- 
tion of “animal” (9 CFR l.l(n),(o)). The introductory 
comments published by the Secretary upon issu- 
ing the regulation did not discuss the basis for this 
exclusion (42 FR 31022) (6). 
The Secretary's 1977 regulatory exclusion of rats 
and mice from coverage by the act appears to be 
inconsistent with the language of the 1970 amend- 
ments. The exclusion of rats and mice from the 
definition of "animal” appears to frustrate the pol- 
icy Congress sought to implement in 1970 and con- 
sequently to be beyond the Secretary’s statutory 
authority (6). 
The Secretary's enforcement powers over the 
expanded classes of licensees and registrants were 
broadened by adding to the definitions of "com- 
merce” and “affecting commerce.” These expanded 
concepts made it plain that the act extended to 
trade, traffic, commerce, and transportation among 
States and, further, that Congress considered any 
activity leading to the inhumane care of animals 
used for purposes of research, experimentation, 
exhibition, or held for sale as pets as constituting a 
burden, obstruction, or a substantial effect on the 
free flow of commerce. Penalties exacted against 
persons convicted of interfering with, assaulting, 
or killing Federal inspectors were increased, and 
the Secretary’s authority to obtain adequate infor- 
mation to sustain administration was augmented 
by broadening discovery procedures . A new provi- 
sion was added, establishing a legal agency relation- 
ship between a covered entity and any person act- 
ing for or employed by that entity, essentially to 
ensure that the Secretary could hold licensees and 
registrants to account for the acts, omissions, and 
failures of their agents or employees. 
The definition of research facility was amended 
to include those using covered live animals, not 
just live dogs and cats , but the Secretary was given 
the authority to exempt institutions not intending 
to use live dogs or cats, unless other animals would 
be used in "substantial numbers.” Regulation of 
covered research facilities was increased to require 
annual reporting and to add civil penalties for any 
refusal to obey a valid cease and desist order from 
the Secretary. 
