290 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
Regarding the training and guidance of inspec- 
tors, GAO found that 57 out of 73 inspectors had 
attended formal training courses. However, 43 of 
the 5 7 had received no training in recent years . 
The last training course for the 17 inspectors in 
Texas was given in 1979. 
Although USD A personnel and planning docu- 
ments state that four inspections a year per site 
is desirable, GAO found that the 3,379 sites in the 
six States were inspected , on the average ,1.7 times 
during fiscal year 1983. In California and New York, 
each site averaged 0.7 inspections per year. Be- 
tween 6.4 percent (in Kansas) and 51.7 percent 
(in California) of the registered facilities in a given 
State were not inspected at all during fiscal year 
1983. 
When looking at followup action taken by USD A 
for unsatisfactory conditions, GAO reviewed in- 
spection reports of 114 sites where major deficien- 
cies were found. In general, GAO found that the 
APHIS offices complied with the Service’s policy 
and met the timeframe goals for the various steps 
in the process. Only 17 of the 114 sites did not fol- 
low the prescribed procedure. 
While conducting the review, GAO noted some 
additional matters affecting the APHIS Animal Wel- 
fare Program. First, there was no specified pro- 
gram or procedure to oversee the quality of in- 
spections. Three of the six States surveyed did not 
have any program for monitoring inspection qual- 
ity. Second, GAO found inconsistencies in the re- 
porting of inspections. Finally, GAO found that 
funding of inspections for 1983 had been based 
on 1982 work levels rather than on estimates of 
current potential workloads and the severity of 
expected problems. 
USDA is subject to the provisions of the Free- 
dom of Information Act (FOIA) (Public Law 90-23), 
a Federal law that generally requires most Fed- 
eral agencies to release to interested persons in- 
formation in its possession, unless it is classified 
or meets one of the other exceptions established 
by Congress and interpreted by the courts. Con- 
gress, concerned about the potential for “harass- 
ment” of research facilities through the use and 
publication of their required inspection forms and 
reports, specified in the final sentence of Section 
25 of the 1966 Animal Welfare Act that USDA could 
not release any such information (except to other 
agencies) "unless and until it [was] made public 
by an appropriate” congressional committee (Pub- 
lic Law 89-544). 
Requests for information under FOIA have in- 
creased steadily since fiscal year 1979. Humane 
groups have usually made about half the petitions 
for information. In fiscal 19 78, they accounted for 
53 of 98 requests— 54 percent (40). For fiscal years 
1981-83, the proportions were 50, 53, and 52 per- 
cent (41,42,43). The highest numbers of documents 
released were in fiscal year 1981 and calendar year 
1984, which coincided with renewed lobbying for 
amendments to strengthen the Animal Welfare Act 
or for new legislation increasing the Federal reg- 
ulatory presence in research. No data are avail- 
able on the proportion of requests for research 
facility records for prior years, but 1984 records 
show that 58 percent of total requests concerned 
research facilities, 62 percent of all documents re- 
leased affected research, and 50 percent of all reg- 
ulated parties affected were registered research 
facilities. The Animal Welfare Institute, a Wash- 
ington, DC, organization interested in the act’s ap- 
plication to research, entered most of the requests 
affecting such institutions (19). Documents most 
often requested are copies of inspection reports, 
reporting forms, records, and forms used to ap- 
ply for licenses or registrations (43). 
Litigation 
No cases can be found where a Federal court 
has had to interpret the provisions of the Animal 
Welfare Act requiring humane care and treatment 
of research animals. Though some State courts 
have considered the act’s provisions when inter- 
preting the effect of other laws (see ch. 14), their 
decisions cannot affect the constitutionality of a 
Federal law's application under the Federal Con- 
stitution. In the only case where the U.S. Supreme 
Court considered any of the act’s provisions, "ex- 
emplary” language in the 1970 amendments ex- 
tending judicial enforcement powers to the Fed- 
eral district courts was cited to sustain review 
jurisdiction asserted under another, similar pro- 
vision in Federal law (14). 
Three Federal appeals courts have had occasion 
to examine the language of the act, though none 
