288 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
Table 13-2.— Distribution of Research Facilities, 
by State, Registered With USDA/APHIS 
Under the Animal Welfare Act 
State/jurisdiction 
Number of 
registered 
research 
facilities 
Percent 
of total 
Rank 
out of 52 
Alabama 
12 
0.9 
24 
Alaska 
1 
0.1 
51 
Arizona 
9 
0.7 
34 
Arkansas 
3 
0.2 
46 
California 
175 
13.6 
1 
Colorado 
25 
1.9 
13 
Connecticut 
17 
1.3 
22 
Delaware 
8 
0.6 
36 
District of Columbia . . 
8 
0.6 
37 
Florida 
47 
3.7 
10 
Georgia 
12 
0.9 
25 
Hawaii 
4 
0.3 
41 
Idaho 
4 
0.3 
42 
Illinois 
63 
4.9 
8 
Indiana 
21 
1.6 
15 
Iowa 
11 
0.9 
27 
Kansas 
18 
1.4 
19 
Kentucky 
6 
0.5 
38 
Louisiana 
12 
0.9 
26 
Maine 
11 
0.9 
28 
Maryland 
33 
2.6 
11 
Massachusetts 
69 
5.4 
5 
Michigan 
49 
3.8 
9 
Minnesota 
19 
1.5 
16 
Mississippi 
3 
0.2 
47 
Missouri 
27 
2.1 
12 
Montana 
3 
0.2 
48 
Nebraska 
10 
0.8 
31 
Nevada 
1 
0.1 
52 
New Hampshire 
4 
0.3 
43 
New Jersey 
68 
5.3 
6 
New Mexico 
11 
0.9 
29 
New York 
120 
9.3 
2 
North Carolina 
19 
1.5 
17 
North Dakota 
3 
0.2 
49 
Ohio 
72 
5.6 
4 
Oklahoma 
13 
1.0 
23 
Oregon 
18 
1.4 
20 
Pennsylvania 
90 
7.0 
3 
Puerto Rico 
10 
0.8 
32 
Rhode Island 
9 
0.7 
35 
South Carolina 
5 
0.4 
39 
South Dakota 
2 
0.2 
50 
Tennessee 
11 
0.9 
30 
Texas 
67 
5.2 
7 
Utah 
10 
0.8 
33 
Vermont 
4 
0.3 
44 
Virginia 
23 
1.8 
14 
Washington 
18 
1.4 
21 
West Virginia 
5 
0.4 
40 
Wisconsin 
19 
1.5 
18 
Wyoming 
4 
0.3 
45 
Total 
. 1,286 
100 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, Animal Welfare: List of Registered Facilities, Fiscal Year 1 985. 
mice used in testing and testing -related research 
merit the same coverage as other warm-blooded 
animals, and if inhumane treatment of such ani- 
mals that are not part of interstate commerce is 
as much a burden on or affects commerce as much 
as the animals that are part of such commerce, 
this disparity assumes greater legislative and reg- 
ulatory significance. 
Table 13-3 summarizes annual registration and 
reporting activity as recorded by APHIS for fiscal 
years 1978-83. The total number of licensees and 
registrants covered by the act— all classes of reg- 
ulated parties, from dealers through intermedi- 
ate handlers— decreased slightly, and the total at 
the close of fiscal year 1983 remained smaller than 
in 1978. Increases in the number of RRFs over the 
preceding year occurred in 4 of the 6 years. The 
number of registered research facilities classified 
as '‘inactive’’ by APHIS (i.e., reporting no use of 
regulated animals for 2 consecutive years) has risen 
steadily but it remains below 7 percent of the to- 
tal. As a class, RRFs rose from 15.8 percent of the 
total in fiscal 1978 to 19.3 percent in fiscal year 
1983, due mainly to a simultaneous decrease in 
the number of licensed dealers. 
APHIS indicated in its 1981 and 1982 Annual En- 
forcement Reports that the failure of qualified re- 
search facilities to register and report was a sig- 
nificant enforcement problem and stated that it 
"currently had no effective system for detecting 
research facilities that use laboratory animals with- 
out being registered.” During 1981, one research 
facility was prosecuted for failure to register, re- 
sulting in registration and entry of a cease and de- 
sist order by an administrative law judge (41). 
Three cases were filed against registrants who had 
failed to report in 1981; in one case, a fine of $1,000 
was assessed, the first time a research facility had 
been fined for failure to report (41,42). 
A number of reports are late or not filed by ac- 
tively registered research facilities either through 
inattention, ignorance of the law, lack of penal- 
ties with sufficient deterrent value, some incom- 
patibility between the calendar or fiscal years of 
facilities and the established Federal fiscal year for 
reporting, the inability of APHIS to analyze and 
compile all reports to meet the congressionally 
