Customer Satisfaction

Counts

To measure the final three indica-
tors, AC carried out a massive
survey in February 1997 of 3,700
randomly selected facilities licen-
sed or registered under the AWA.
More than 2,100 people responded
to the survey, which asked them to
Tate the program on 13 different
performance measures using a
5-point scale with 5 being excel-
lent and 1 being poor. The aver-
age response for each measure is
listed in chart 7, along with the
average for all of the measures
combined.

Based on survey responses, AC
officials have established baseline
performance levels and goals for

the final three GPRA indicators.
AC is seeking to improve its rating
on informational materials and
electronic access from 3.24 to 4.0,
its rating on the effectiveness of its
regulations from 3.58 to 4.0, and
its overall customer satisfaction
tating from 3.59 to 4.0. All of
these goals are set for FY 1999.
AC will survey the same licensees
and registrants at that time to mea-
sure its progress. In addition, AC
intends to survey the animal wel-
fare community in the future to
obtain their ratings of program
operations. At the end of FY 1997,
this survey was still being
developed.

Inspecting Based on Risk,

Not Numbers

As noted earlier in this report, AC
is actively moving away from an
inspection system that measures
performance based solely on
numbers of inspections
conducted. The new focus is on
conducting more indepth
inspections and targeting those
facilities with the greatest risk of
possible AWA violations and/or
incidents involving injury to
humans or animals.

The result is AC's risk-based
inspection system, which is in the
final stages of development. This
system uses several objective
criteria, including past compliance

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SCORES,
ANIMAL CARE PROGRAM

Courtesy and professionalism
Knowledge of animal husbandry
Inspectors’ efficiency
Availability and responsiveness
Direct personal contacts
Inspection process

Overall Program Average
Regulations

Telephone contacts

Inspection forms

Enforcement process
Informational materials
Electronic access

Industry and public meetings

0

Summary of 2,113 Responses

1 2

417

4 5

[1=Poor 2=Fair 3= Good

4= Very Good _§ = Excellent

history, to determine the
inspection frequency of each
licensed and registered facility.
For example, facilities that meet all
of the criteria would qualify for low
inspection frequency and be
subject to inspections once every
3 years. Facilities that met few or
none of the criteria would quality
for high inspection frequency and
be subject to inspections at least
every 6 months. AC, of course,
Temains committed to inspecting
research facilities once a year, as
Tequired under the law.

This approach is significantly
different than inspecting each
facility once a year regardless of
its past compliance history and the
potential risk to animals and/or
humans. We believe it is an
equitable and objective way to
make better use of our
increasingly limited resources
while maintaining continued
protection for animals covered
under the AWA.

Chart 7



TABLES. ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH, WITH PAIN OR DISTRESS—
NO DRUGS USED FOR RELIEF (FY 1997)

Other
Number of Number of Guinea farm Other
registrants all animals Dogs Cats Primates pigs © Hamsters Rabbits Sheep Pigs animals animals

Total United States 1,522 101,160 1,671 378 840 37,799 46,288 9,866 72 1,658 249 2,389

eoooosd

Rooo

Total Research 1,282 95,007 1,454 365 646 «35312 «44,267 «93,499. 721,180. 200. 2,012
Federal Agencies 240 6,153 27 43 194 2,487 1,971 367 oO 478 49 cies
Alabama 18 95 83 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alaska 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arizona 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) 0 0
Arkansas 12 91 122 0 118 252 0 268 0 151 0 0
California 201 6,600 102 0 65 5146 25 764 20 242 146 220
Colorado 27 2,070 0 0 20 1,614 70 89 15 30 0 232
Connecticut 24 449 2 0 78 0 12 307 0 0 0 50
Delaware 10 2,016 64 0 0 120 1,739 93 0 0 0 0
District of Columbia 10 331 0 0 8 240 83 0 0 0 0 0
Florida 32 178 4 0 45 0 0 129 0 0 0 0
Georgia 23 5,095 116 52 70 123 2,581 2,075 0 0 0 78
Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii 5 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Idaho 6 128 0 0 0 0 0 128 0 0 0 0
IMlinois 48 1,915 107 0 12 495 272 93 0 15 0 921
{ndiana 26 104 96 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lowa 23 25,626 265 = 129 0 1,350 21,978 1,391 33 436 44 0
Kansas 22 9,720 0 0 0 2,001 7,066 651 0 0 2 0
Kentucky 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Louisiana 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 “0 0 0
Maine 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maryland 60 3,314 146 0 50. 2518 73 287 0 0 0 24
‘Massachusetts 90 1,635 0 0 4 652 844 24 0 86 25

Michigan 39 1,680 23 13 3 1,254 79 280 0 0 0

Minnesota 31 4,219 6 42 0 62 4,060 49 0 0 0
Mississippi 9 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0

Missouri 43 8,408 0 0 0 2,072 6,260 74 0 0 2

Montana 10 144 0 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0

Nebraska 16 59 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0

Nevada 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

New Hampshire 4 60 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 12 0 1
New Jersey 50 3,534 37 0 100 = 1,799 320. 1,230 0 38 10 0
New Mexico 13 33 0 0 9 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
New York 113 4,186 199 0 27 2,455 745 52 0 397 20 291
North Carolina 3t 2,802 16 0 0 2,347 0 217 0 210 0 12
North Dakota 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ohio 54 2,688 0 0 0 2,032 0 323 0 0 0 333
Oklahoma 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oregon 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pennsylvania 89 7,302 225 (142 61 6,590 2 282 0 0 0 0
Puerto Rico 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rhode Island 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
South Carolina 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
‘South Dakota 8 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 0 0
Tennessee 24 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Texas 100 939 30 0 74 3n1 29 459 4 32 0 0
Utah aa} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vermont 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Virginia 19 29 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Washington 7 2711 0 0 0 2,689 0 22 0 0 0 0
West Virginia 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wisconsin 32 1,993 0 0 0 1,509 0 484 0 0 0 0
Wyoming 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EI]



Carriers and

Intermediate Handlers

Carriers registered with USDA
include airlines, motor freight
lines, railroads, and other
shipping businesses. Registered
intermediate handlers are ground
freight handlers. Intermediate
handlers usually provide services
for animals between consignor
and carrier and from carrier to
consignee. They also care for
animals delayed in transit.

The numbers of sites and
Tegistered carriers and
intermediate handlers for FY 1995
through 1997 are listed below.
Chart 3 shows the number of
carrier and intermediate handler
inspections for the same period.

1,500 7 FY 1995,
COFY 1996

FY 197

Carrier facilities

Carrier sites

Carrier inspections Handler facilities

‘Numbers from Work-Based Budget System (WBBS) reports.

CARRIERS AND INTERMEDIATE HANDLERS, FY 1995-97

Handler sites Handler inspections

Chart 3

gana
\\

SITES AND REGISTERED CARRIERS AND
INTERMEDIATE HANDLERS, FY 1995-97

Registered Intermediate

carrier handlers

FY (sites) (sites)
1997 96 309
(732) (465)

1996 98 302
(725) (417)

1995 98 275
(453) (303)



APHIS Staff Assists AC
With Airport Inspections

During FY 1997 and 1997, AC
conducted a pilot program to
assess the feasibility of using
personnel from APHIS’ Veterinary
Services (VS) program to assist
with inspections of commercial
airlines. During the 6-month
program, 16 VS employees in 3
States (Kentucky, South Carolina,
and North Carolina) were given
both formal and on-the-job
training, and they conducted more
than 40 inspections. These
inspections were mainly of
personal pets being shipped as
baggage or cargo, which AC
otherwise could not have
inspected because of resource
constraints.

The final evaluation of the pilot
program showed that six airports,
which had previously not been
Toutinely inspected by AC,
received inspections and educa-
tional visits. In addition, VS
inspectors identified two unregis-
tered carriers and two shipments
with AWA violations. Based on
these impressive results, AC and
VS have signed a formal Memo-
randum of Understanding that now
enables VS employees to conduct
airport inspections and other types
of limited inspections throughout
the country. We firmly believe that
this will afford AC the opportunity
to leverage its enforcement activi-
ties without increasing its cost of
doing business.



THE AWA: A LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY HISTORY

The
Law

In 1966, Congress enacted Public
Law (P.L.) 89-544, known as the
Laboratory Animal Welfare Act.
This law regulated dealers who
handle dogs and cats as well as
laboratories that use dogs, cats,
hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, or
nonhuman primates in research.

The first amendment to the Lab-
oratory Animal Welfare Act was
passed in 1970 (PL. 91-579) and
changed the name of the law to the
Animal Welfare Act (AWA). This
amendment authorized the
Secretary of Agriculture to regulate
other warmblooded animals when
used in research, exhibition, or the
wholesale pet trade.

Anamendment in 1976 (P.L. 94—
279) prohibited most animal
fighting ventures and regulated the
commercial transportation of
animals. Another amendment was
added to the AWA in 1985 as the
Improved Standards for Laboratory
Animals Act, which was part of the
Food Security Act. These amend-
Ments required the Secretary to
issue additional standards for the
use of animals in research.

In 1990, provisions concerning
injunctive relief and pet protection
were added to the AWA. These
two provisions were included in
the Food, Agriculture, Conserva-
tion and Trade Act of 1990. The
injunctive relief provision author-
izes the Secretary to seek an
injunction to stop certain licensed
entities from continuing to violate
the AWA while charges are
pending. (Injunctions are used in
cases of stolen animals and where
an ani-mal’s health is in serious
danger or may become
endangered.)

The pet protection provision man-
dated that the Secretary issue
additional regulations pertaining
to random-source dogs and cats.
(Random source means “dogs and
cats obtained from animal pounds
or shelters, auction sales, or from
any person who did not breed and
taise them on his or her premises.”)

The
Regulations

USDA is charged with developing
and implementing regulations to
support the AWA. These regula-
tions, which appear in Title 9,
Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Chapter 1, Subchapter A,
Parts 1-3, require the licensing of
animal dealers, exhibitors, and
operators of animal auction sales
where animals regulated under the
AWA are sold. (Birds and labora-
tory rats and mice are not currently
included in the regulations.)

Licenses are valid unless the
licensee terminates the license
voluntarily or fails to renew it or an
administrative law judge suspends
or revokes the license in an
enforcement proceeding.
Licensing fees for dealers and
exhibitors are determined by a
graduated schedule listed in the
regulations [9 CFR 2.6(5)(c)}.
Dealers pay between $30 and
$750, and exhibitors pay between
$30 and $300 per year. These fees
are deposited as miscellaneous
receipts in the U.S. Treasury.

The regulations also require all
carriers, intermediate handlers,
and exhibitors not subject to
licensing and all non-Federal
research facilities to register with
the Secretary of Agriculture. There
is no charge to register. Table 1 in
the appendix provides a list of the
number of licensees and regis-
trants for each State in the country.

All licensees and registrants must
provide their animals with care
that meets or exceeds USDA'S
standards for veterinary care and
animal husbandry. These stan-
dards include requirements for
handling, housing, feeding,
sanitation, ventilation, shelter from
extreme weather, veterinary care,
and separation of species when
Necessary.

Over the years, USDA has made
substantive changes to the AWA
regulations. In the late 1980's,
USDA amended the requirements
pertaining to the use of animals in
research. These amendments, in
response to the Improved

E)


TABLE 3. ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH, NO PAIN OR DISTRESS—

NO DRUGS NEEDED FOR RELIEF (FY 1997)

Other

Number of Number of Guinea farm Other

registrants allanimals Dogs Cats Primates pigs Hamsters Rabbits — Sheep Pigs animals animals
Total United States 1,522 685,154 32,840 12,322 32,763 159,097 113,346 166,450 21,645 29,850 43,785 73,056
Total Research 1,282 608,984 32,673 12,080 30,524 154,075 103,543 163,560 8,171 23,957 25,136 55,265
Federal Agencies 240 76,170 167 242 2.239 «5,022» «9,803. «2,890 13.474 «5,893 18,649 17,791
Alabama 18 2,719 445 123 15 329 55 834 7 43 500 358
Alaska 7 97 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89
Arizona 13 3,396 88 0 76 143 135 303 0 134 19 2,498
Arkansas 12 718 122 24 ra) 0 102 252 0 0 0 147
California 201 103,082 971 1,672 3,924 24,706 15,090 38,038 2,221 2419 5,960 7,581
Colorado 7 4962 1,136 430 0 844 345 553 119 18 165 1,352
Connecticut 24 4,998 186 2 47 274 431 617 0 43 12 386
Delaware 10 7,926 —- 1,092 185 26 1,398 2,972 1,618 0 2 0 633
District of Columbia 10 2,349 10 64 87 27 615 328 12 0 0 962
Florida 32 6,574 187 49 77 1,420 326 = 1,288 38 50 70 2,459
Georgia 23 18,087 1,033 2820—1,344 584 «5,878 300 16 76 188 8,386
Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii 5 45 0 1 9 5 0 3 0 0 0 7
\daho 6 2,748 0 2 0 12 0 342,510 0 0 190
Illinois 48 17,756 891 445 37946192525 5,796 305 756 466 4,574
Indiana 26 6,680 1,577 233 266 556 382 1,889 6 962 207 602
lowa 23 27,764 1,660 1,068 1 4,908 15,155 942 127, 3,395 3,424 84
Kansas 22 12,698 1,450 553 0 764 7,852 164 116 774 329 696
Kentucky 13 1,122 13 0 4 107 278 564 33 0 6 117
Louisiana 16 11,472 186 409 8,914 225 321 318 290 320 94 395
Maine 12 741 0 3 0 38 40 228 0 0 432 0
Maryland 60 23,450 250 108 = 2,288) 5,391 8,330 5,610 185 295 107 886
Massachusetts 90 30,395 455 6 827 12,705 8,870 5,469 316 716 134 827
Michigan 39 17,490 1,924 354 721 2,915 396 4,928 110 106 70 = (5,971
Minnesota 31 12,458 548 275 24 4,164 4,023 1,872 145 585 113 109
Mississippi 9 1,499 169 43 75 24 226 407 476 72 0
Missouri 43 18,850 2,163 1,917 2 ©6«6,976 = 2,048 = 3,159 418 1,369 1009 766
Montana 10 3,006 9 32 25 202 1,327 0 0 6 1,405
Nebraska 16 63,740 487 131 45 2,448 15,174 1,869 11,005 11,944 19,966 674
Nevada 5 2,974 154 0 = 1,234 784 6 94 74 0 0 628
New Hampshire 4 133 0 0 0 16 22 61 0 26 2 6
New Jersey 50 46,564 = 2,814 197 1,115 18,045 «= 3,712 15,344 99 266 50 4,922
New Mexico 13 669 WwW 0 154 136 158 0 0 0 78
New York 113 24,287 1,454 601 946 6,648 3,879 3,516 48 33 1,823 5,339
North Carolina 31 17,842 609 246 735 («6,725 240 = 8,352 76 382 156 321
North Dakota 7 98 23 28 0 6 7 0 3 3 28
Ohio 54 37,911 2,276 381 459 21,246 587 11,402 55 371 105 1,029
Oklahoma 20 890 235 39 0 406 2 20 23 8 31 126
Oregon 7 1,139 41 12 216 14 351 6 0 0 0 492
Pennsylvania 89 64,217 3,524 1,373 = 1,008» 20,273 2,134 32,377 447 476 1,034 1,571
Puerto Rico 9 825 0 0 750 30 10 35 0 0 0 0
Rhode Island 8 292 0 0 5 0 0 14 0 0 0 273
South Carolina 9 6,538 0 128 0 0 56 63 0 2 0 6,289
South Dakota 8 3,618 val 22 0 10 6 5 1,349 410 1,748 47
Tennessee 24 2,236 81 “62 61 144 868 613 4 12 71 320
Texas 100 25,778 976 435 2581 4,828 2.417 (6,586 491 814 .2,349 4,306
Utah ant 1,626 67 8 0 379 450 359 48 118 16 181
Vermont 3 664 4 4 0 383 104 26 0 1 2 140
Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Virginia 19 5,778 749 ah 498 359 349 2,243 32 192 210 1,135
Washington 37 9,291 452 132 702 238 1,542 875 107 23 61 5,159
West Virginia 8 167 0 0 0 70 15 64 0 tt) 0 18
Wisconsin 32 27,390 2,227 150 2,389 = 6,308 4,862 5,143 783 2,227 2,161 1,140
Wyoming 5 405 0 4 0 6 3 8 13 3 14 354



New, User-Friendly Inspection

Reports

To make them easier to read and
understand for all users, AC has
developed a new narrative format
for its inspection reports. These
reports now provide a list of any
items that are not in compliance
(either newly or previously cited)
and a narrative description of the
citation. They also reference the
specific section of the AWA
fegulations under which the
noncompliant item has been cited.

Equally beneficial, AC is auto-
Mating these new report forms so
that inspectors enter data by
typing, not handwriting, it. Soon,
the days of having to interpret an
inspector's writing will be long
gone.

Bringing the Field Force Into

the Electronic Age

To support the use of the new
inspection reports, AC equipped
all of its field personnel with
laptop computers during FY 1997
and supplied training on how to
use them. These computers
enable field inspectors to generate
their reports either onsite at a
licensee or registrant's facility or
immediately after inspecting the
facility.

Computers will also eliminate the
costly practice of having
inspectors manually write out
reports only to send them to the
regional offices to be typed into
the computer. Eventually, reports
will be entered once into the
LARIS data base, saving AC the
expense of a duplicative process.
These funds can be redirected
toward operational activities rather
than administrative expenses.

To further support its field force,
AC has also equipped its
inspectors with fax machines and
dedicated phone lines and is
adding e-mail capability. These
fesources enable field personnel
to communicate better internally
with other inspectors (including
their strategic direction team
members), the regional offices,
and AC headquarters. The new
equipment also helps personnel
improve communication with the
program's external stakeholders,
including other Federal and State
agencies and regulated parties.



Liaison With Other

Federal Agencies

AC serves on the Interagency
Research Animal Committee,
whose members come from
Federal agencies involved in the
care and use of animals in
biomedical research. This
committee is responsible for
interagency coordination of animal
care-and-use concerns and for
making contributions to policy
development. It also acts as a
forum for information exchange
and regulation development.

AC also maintains close working
telationships with other Federal
agencies that deal with animals on
regulation and enforcement of the
AWA. APHIS cooperated on
numerous issues with the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services’ National Institutes of
Health, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and Food
and Drug Administration; the
Department of Defense; the
Department of Veterans Affairs;
the Marine Mammal Commission
the U.S. Department of
Commerce's National Marine
Fisheries Service; the U.S.
Department of the Interior's U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; and the
Environmental Protection Agency.

Cooperating and Communicating

With Stakeholders

In FY 1997, APHIS and the
tesearch community cosponsored
a research internship program that
sent two AC veterinarians to 6
intensive weeks of training at
various research facilities and
teaching institutions.

AC personnel also attended and
participated in national meetings
held by various organizations,
including the International
Association of Aquatic Animal
Medicine, the Society of Marine
Mammalogy, the Association of
Aquatic Life Support System
Operators, the North American
Veterinary Conference, the
American Association of
Laboratory Animal Science
International, and Public
Responsibility in Medicine and
Research.

In total, AC personnel attended
more than 450 industry meetings
and training sessions in FY 1997
and presented papers or informal
talks at more than 70 of them.
They also staffed an exhibit booth
at seven of these meetings to
answer questions and provide
information on AC’s enforcement
of the AWA.

In addition, AC personnel actively
interacted with organizations
concerned about the humane care
of animals, These organizations
include the American Zoo and
Aquarium Association, the
National Association for
Biomedical Research, Americans
for Medical Progress, the
American Association of Zoo
Veterinarians, the Alliance for
Marine Mammal Parks and
Aquariums, the Association for the
Assessment and Accreditation of
Laboratory Animal Care
International, and the Scientist's
Center for Animal Welfare.

Additional cooperators include the
Humane Society of the United
States, the Animal Welfare
Institute, the American Humane
Association, the Animal Protection
Institute, the Association of
American Medical Colleges, and
the Air Transport Association. AC
is also represented in the United
States Animal Health Association
and has members on both its
animal welfare and zoological
committees.


SPECIAL INITIATIVES

In FY 1997, AC pursued many

operational enhancements that did

not fall within the scope of its

strategic direction. These projects
all come under the broad rubric of
special initiatives.

Class B Dealer Traceback

Reaps Benefits

Since FY 1993, APHIS has con-
ducted an intensive traceback
effort of dogs sold by random-
source, class B animal dealers.
These dealers, who supply ani-
mals to the research community,
typically obtain them from pounds
and shelters, pet owners who wish
to relinquish ownership, and
other legitimate sources. However,
there has always been concern that
these dealers may be trafficking in
stolen animals.

Under the AWA, random-source
dealers are required to maintain
accurate records of the acquisition
and disposition of their animals.
APHIS’ traceback effort has
focused on making sure these
records are accurate and complete.
To make this effort effective, APHIS.

has conducted quarterly inspec-
tions of all random-source dealers
since the traceback project went
into effect in 1993.

The fruits of this effort have been
tremendous. From FY 1993
through 1997, the percentage of
animals traced back to their
original source has increased from
a little more than 40 percent to
more than 95 percent. At the same
time, the number of random-
source dealers has decreased from
more than 100 to fewer than 40,
largely due to AC's stringent
enforcement efforts. Moreover, the
number of class B dealer investi-
gations has decreased from a high
of 260 in 1992 to just over 50 in
this fiscal year.

Testing for Tuberculosis (TB)
in Elephants

To protect the health of elephants
exhibited in America, AC worked
with several industry organizations
throughout FY 1997 to develop
Quidelines for routine TB screen-
ing of these animals. The
guidelines, if adopted, would
become part of the “adequate

veterinary care” standard under the
AWA and would specify acceptable
testing methods, minimum treat-
ment regimens, and restrictions on
travel for elephants that test posi-
tive for TB. At the end of FY 1997,
these guidelines were near
completion.


TABLE 4. ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH, WITH PAIN OR DISTRESS—
DRUGS USED FOR RELIEF (FY 1997)
Other

Number of | Number of Guinea farm Other

registrants all animals Dogs Cats Primates pigs Hamsters Rabbits Sheep Pigs animals animals
Total United States 1,522 481,514 40,918 13391 22,778 + 75,901 57,495 133,008 11,331 42,487 «8,665 75,542
Total Research 1,282 404,947 39,453 12,963 20,449 66,393 48,356 123,782 10,443 38,429 «6,903 37,776
Federal Agencies 240 76,567 1,465 428 «2,329 «9,608 «9,139 (9,224 888 «4,058 «1,762 37,776
Alabama 18 5.710 1,550 207 603 874 4 1,510 45 ot 35 281
Alaska 7 309 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 296
Arizona 13 2,560 408 78 45 105 337 810 44 381 24 328
Arkansas 12 936 20 a7 4 408 6 265 0 139 0 67
California 201 80,554 2.222 2185 2277 9,734 16,736 31,306 2,688 4,063 2,299 7,044
Colorado 27 3,479 247 215 45 515 397 902 612 338 9 199.
Connecticut 24 7,149 859 96 114 1,121 806 2,263 6 786 28 1,070
Delaware 10 7,526 619 10 5 3,455 274 2,474 0 48 0 641
District of Columbia 10 2,848 208 217 147 247 194 386 20 902 12 515
Florida 32 9,734 474 543 106 pall 200 1,536 201 785 104 §,574
Georgia 23 39,879 = 1,095 413 1,854 2,250 2,762 4,575 372,138 435 24,325
Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii 5 315 0 0 0 140 0 47 0 106 7 5
tdaho 6 791 23 6 0 0 0 0 578 0 0 184
thinois 48 14,180 1,734 494 431 2,911 2.571 3,302 146 1,096 60 1,435
Indiana 26 5,474 1,519 192 9 1,174 700 = 1,109 172 451 84 64
lowa 23 9,277 961 434 8 3,299 384 3,021 92 726 132 220
Kansas. 22 6,936 280 160 108 2,244 1,071 2,747 1 93 76 156
Kentucky 13 3,679 333 147 113 474 565 1,494 0 210 2 341
Louisiana 16 6,155 1,004 162 1,380 898 0 1,833 0 308 7 493
Maine 12 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0
Maryland 60 32,690 1,156 635. 2,470 «= 5,929 3,562 5,763 527 2,665 186 9,797
Massachusetts 90 25,979 855 249 2,299 2,683 6,537 6,768 941 3,244 928 1,475
Michigan 39 13,248 1,995 933 104 2,852 864 3,544 426 669 104 1,757
Minnesota 31 10,814 1,838 94 264 «2,659 1,215 1,925 617 1,657 mM 374
Mississippi 9 347 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 4 18
Missouri 43 11,280 1,172 293 58 1,650 2,847 2,575 171 1a 180 1,223
Montana 10 929 0 4 0 0 720 122 0 19 64
Nebraska 16 4,985 304 232 19 346 582 564 61 1,027 1,089 761
Nevada 5 495 12 0 171 78 0 0 234 0 0 0
New Hampshire 4 AT 9 50 0 0 0 166 15 17 0 0
New Jersey 50 26,200 3,004 728 1,301 10,765 902 7,054 33 1,790 54 569
New Mexico 13 1,219 75 0 308 49 103 23 159 94 0 408
New York 113 22,108 2,460 783 933 3,458 2,028 6,387 916 1,757 4 3,345
North Carolina 31 13,929 1,154 455 «1,471 1,589 1,825 3,567 138 2,554 66 1,110
North Dakota 7 308 8 7 0 30 0 3 144 90 16 0
Ohio 54 19,862 2,544 380 227 2,668 1,429 4,566 153 4,729 137 3,029
Oklahoma 20 2,321 502 171 71 176 104 398 40 40 66 753
Oregon 7 3,360 144 57 944 704 435 904 46 118 2 6
Pennsylvania 89 22,811 2,561 677 905 5,704 1,789 7,263 425 1,743 167 1,577
Puerto Rico 9 1,477 88 0 1,056 6 96 19 0 un 0 201
Rhode Island 8 1,505 15 121 31 132 24 150 190 ari 249 322
South Carolina 9 4,472 249 193 153 186 231 508 0 396 49 2,507
South Dakota 8 738 28 2 0 10 WwW 510 0 9 56 12
Tennessee 24 8,147 992 145 150 951 476 3,351 98 1,369 0 615
Texas 100 18,874 1,735 456 1,254 1,120 2,444 7,842 515 1,866 1,153 489
Utah aa 1,496 510 51 7 162 15 542 150 36 23 0
Vermont 3 348 12 4 0 0 0 230 0 96 0 6
Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Virginia 19 9,357 920 281 615 460 1,333 3,511 46 700 121 1,370
Washington 37 5,411 823 111 186 205 458 2,700 209 462 5 182
West Virginia 8 1,316 55 92 9 567 36 275 63 20 0 199
Wisconsin 32 7,372 1,897 492 523 702 1,042 1,598 250 500 288 80
Wyoming 5 112 18 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 58

E



Swift and Stringent

Enforcement

© In April 1997, APHIS settled a
case with a licensed animal
exhibitor whose citations
included mistreatment and
unsuitable facilities for animals.
APHIS’ goal was to remove the
animals from the person's pos-
session as quickly as possible.
Accordingly, under the settle-
ment, the agency required the
licensee to immediately sur-
render his license and all of his
animals that were covered
under the AWA.

In September 1997, APHIS’
case against a class B animal
dealer for more than 1,500
AWA recordkeeping violations
came to an end with a permanent
tevocation of the dealer's
license and a $175,000 fine to
be paid in full. The dealer had
been charged with, among
other things, selling dogs and
cats to research facilities under
falsified documents and
maintaining false acquisition
records for dogs.

The High-Priority
Designation

An important component of AC
and IES’ new strategy is the high-
priority designation for certain
cases. Cases are deemed high
priority based on the following
criteria:

© Severity of animal suffering
(death or severe injury),

Past compliance history of
facility,

© Potential public or animal safety
or health concerns,

© Ina landmark case still pending
at the end of FY 1997, APHIS
was seeking a permanent
fevocation of an exhibitor’s
license and substantial
Monetary penalties for alleged
AWA violations pertaining to the
movement of elephants and
llamas across the southwestern
United States in the summer of
1997. The movement of the
animals resulted in the death of
one of the elephants.

The case is significant not only
in terms of penalties sought but
also in the swift manner in
which it was handled. By
Making this case a top priority,
APHIS was able to complete its
investigation and file formal
charges within 3 weeks,
whereas this process typically
takes several months. APHIS
was also able to obtain an
administrative hearing within

2 months, a process that nor-
mally takes more than a year.

© Abusive or potentially violent
nature of licensee or registrant,

© Type of facility and species of
animal involved, and

© Media, public, or animal
protection group interest.

When a case is given this designa-
tion, AC, IES, and USDA’ Office of
the General Counsel put special
emphasis on the investigation and
enforcement of a case to expedite
its resolution. This measure has
been successful in shortening the
timeframes of significant cases
and providing quicker relief for
animals protected under the AWA.

The Bottom Line: A Reduced Backlog
of Cases and Significant Sanctions

Through this new strategy, the AC
and IES staffs and the Office of the
General Counsel have been able
to virtually eliminate the backlog
of AWA cases awaiting resolution
through the formal administrative
process. The result should be
shorter timeframes for prosecuting
future cases and the ability to
expedite high-priority cases.

\n addition, APHIS obtained more
than $800,000 in monetary penal-
ties, The agency required licensees
and registrants to put more than
$75,000 of these penalties into
facility renovations, employee
training, and other areas to improve
the conditions for their animals.

The next tabulation provides
detailed information on the number
of enforcement actions conducted
and resolved during FY 1997. In
the tabulation, it should be noted
that “Cases Submitted,” “Cases
Resolved,” and “Sanctions
Imposed” are those actions that
actually occurred during the fiscal
year even though many of the
settled cases were submitted in
previous years. This numerical
disparity occurs because it takes a
case considerable time to work its
way through the legal system and
appeals process.

NUMBERS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
CONDUCTED AND RESOLVED, FY 1995-97

Cases Investigated and Reviewed

Submitted
‘Submitted to for formal
FY Cases {ES staff prosecution
1997 365 118 58
1996 370 126 78
1995 425 150 79
Cases Resolved
Administrative
Official Stipulations Jaw judges’
FY warnings offered/settled decisions
1997 167 86/49 98
1996 182 85/45, 84
1995 263 131/85 35
Sanctions Imposed
Revocations,
Fines imposed by suspensions,
administrative Fines imposed and disqualifi-
FY law judges by stipulation cations
1997 $822,200 $46,240 43
1996 $1,002,250 $48,340 29
1995 $401,750 $49,975 19



approach that APHIS firmly
believes makes better use of AC's
inspection resources.

AC is also planning additional
enhancements to its inspection
procedures in the coming years to
further utilize the program's limited
inspection resources. These
include a risk-based inspection
system that will determine the
inspection frequency for licensees
and registrants based on a number
of objective criteria, including their
past compliance history.

The next tabulation details the
number of inspections of licensees
and registrants conducted during
FY 1997. Subsequent tabulations
chronicle the number of different
types of inspections conducted
from FY 1995 through FY 1997.

FY 1997 AWA INSPECTIONS
Total number — Number of Total number — Number of
offacilities inspections offacilities inspections
and (sites)' by category and (sites)’ by category
Inspections for Compliance? Other Types of Inspe Ss
Dealers 4,043 Prelicensing and
(4,387) 5,385 preregistration
inspections NA 2,150
Research 1,243
facilities (2,410) 2,645 Auction market
‘observations NA 7
Exhibitors 2,128
(2,540) 2,851 Attempted inspections
of dealers
Intransit 309 and exhibitors NA 1,614
handlers (465) 275,
Total 3,841
Intransit 96
carriers? (732) 901 Total of Inspections
for Compliance and
Total 7,789 12,056 Other Inspections 15,898
(10,534)
+ See the glossary of terms forthe definition of “site” and “acy.” certain reasons—usually because there was no one available atthe
2 Inspections for compliance are unannounced inspections and facility when the inspector arrived unannounced.)
reinspections. These do not include prelicensing or preregistration 3 Intransit Carriers is a category representing commercial airlines.
inspections, auction market observations, or attempted inspections. ach ailine may have two of more animal transportation sites at each
(Prelcensing/preregistation inspections are announced. Observations airport it serves, Due to frequent changes in tne actives and other
of licensed and unticensed auction markets are made to locale factors, the number of sites may vary.
unlicensed dealers. Attempted inspections could not be performed for

Summary of Complaints
and Searches

{n addition to inspections, AC
personnel routinely conduct
searches for unlicensed or
unregistered persons. They also

COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED AND
SEARCHES MADE, FY 1995-97

investigate public complaints to

determine whether regulated FY Complaints Searches
animals are receiving proper care

and/or the animal owner(s) should

be licensed or registered. The next 1997 463 1,330
tabulation documents the number 1996 508 1,420
of searches and public complaints 1995 566 1,728

AC handled in fiscal years 1995

through 1997.



APPENDIX

TABLE 1. NUMBER OF LICENSEES AND REGISTRANTS,
BY FACILITIES AND NUMBER OF SITES (FY 1997)

Registered Licensed Licensed
intermediate Registered Class A Class B
handlers carriers dealers dealers

Licensed
exhibitors

Registered
exhibitors

Active
fesearch
facilities

Inactive
Tesearch
facilities

Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites

Total United States 309 465 96 732 2,996 3,151 1,047 1,236 2,105 2,510

Alabama 2 3 0.6 6 7 13 12
Alaska 3.4 4 12 0 0 0 0
Arizona 14° «(18 2 5 6 6 6 10
Arkansas 1 2 0 26 148 156 20 26
California 33° «56 9 7 21d 19 ral
Colorado 8 10 3 2 10 611 6 6
Connecticut 8 12 1 5 0 0 2 3
Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4
District of Columbia 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
Florida 28 52 6 61 30-38 57 68
Georgia 14°16 2 2B 22 22 16 16
Guam 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
Hawaii 2 a7 5 a7 0 0 ) 0
Idaho 0 0 0 5 3 3 1 1
Mlinois 9 8 2. 5 a 4 29 28
Indiana 4 6 2 18 3435 38 40
lowa 0 3 1 3 292 308 63 73
Kansas 0 0 1 8 387-397 66 84
Kentucky 4° 8 1 8 8 10 10 10
Louisiana 1 3 0 8 7 17 8 8
Maine 3) 6 0 2 1 1 4 6
Maryland 7 16 0 13 1 1 4 8
Massachusetts 4° 8 1 3 7 9 9 12
Michigan 3. 6 2 32 18 15 37 57
Minnesota 141 2 8 7 79 3939
Mississippi 0 0 0 5 5 5 4 5
Missouri 6 7 3 34 = 970 1014 137-171
Montana 0 0 1 #7 10 10 2 2
Nebraska 11 0 6 137 138 1818
Nevada 3°05 1 0 4 4 7 7
New Hampshire 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
New Jersey 6 7 2 4 8 6 18 18
New Mexico 4 5 4 0 0 0 2 2
New York 21 30 6 15 7 20 30 32
North Carolina 5 2 24 6 6 18 24
North Dakota 1 1 0 22 2 26 6 7
Ohio 7 9 1 15 23 5 33 39
Oklahoma 3.5 0 320 339 52 57
Oregon 3 4 1 5 330035 34 39
Pennsylvania 15 18 1 8 95 105 44 52
Puerto Rico 1 2 5 16 1 1 1 1
Rhode Island 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
South Carolina 2. 3 0 13 7°40 5 5
South Dakota 0 0 0 2 73 «74 15 20
Tennessee 4 9 20 4 8 8 12 «13
Texas 23 42 6 6 92. 99 89105 = 129
Utah 3. 3 2 8 2 3 1 1
Vermont 2 3 0 0 1 1 2 2
Virgin Islands 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0
Virginia 1 14 3 5 1 2 10 14
Washington 7 10 7 6 an an 13 14
West Virginia 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 12
Wisconsin 3 3 4 14 15 W 19
Wyoming 0. 60 0 0 1 1 0 0

23 «30

0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1

2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
1

5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0

0

0
0
0
c)
0
0
0
0
1

2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
1
7
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0

4,243 2,410
1442
4.7
10 22
9 16
167 290
19 40
a 29
8 1
6 11
2 58
18 52
0 0
2 7
3 8
a 59
23 47
7 45
19 28
10 28
2. 3
1 14
44 64
82 141
34 106
29 59
6 13
3975
6 10
13-20
2 5
304
48 75
1 2
98 147
23 83
3 3
4% 95
18 34
1
79 123
8 ot
7 15
7
5 9
7 34
80 146
8 32
2 2
0 0
16 30
7 83
48
29 87
3. «9

39° 52

0
0
0

0
0

0 0
0

5 16
3.3
14
0.0
00
3°44
0 0
00
0 0
104
0 0
0.0
0 0
144
141
0 0
0 0
164
0 0
00
0 0
00
0 0
eo4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 2
1.2
00
14
0 0
2.3
1 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
2 3
00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3.7
0 0
0-0
0 0

El


Additional Regulatory
Initiatives

In addition to the initiatives
discussed above, AC also
continued to move forward on
many other regulatory projects in
FY 1997. The list below provides
a brief status on these projects as
of September 30, 1997.

fal

Marine Mammals—A
proposed rule on the consensus
language to revise Title 9 CFR,
Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 3,
Subpart E (Marine Mammal
Captive Care and Maintenance)
was under review. Information
was collected to determine how to
proceed with the areas where
consensus could not be achieved
regarding revisions. A final rule
on the “Swim-with-the-Dolphins”
regulations (Title 9 CFR, Chapter
1, Subchapter A, part 3, Subpart
E) remained under review.

Animal Transport—A regula-
tory workplan to alter Title 9 CFR,
Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 3,
Subpart F to set minimum age
fequirements for the transportation
of exotic or wild animals was
being considered.

Animal Dealers—Final rules
pertaining to wire flooring and
temperature requirements for dog
housing (Title 9 CFR, Chapter 1,
Subchapter A, Part 3.6) were
under review.

Recordkeeping Require-
ments—A workplan to add
minimum medical recordkeeping
requirements (Title 9 CFR,
Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part
2.33 and 2.40) was under review.


HOW USDA ADMINISTERS

Each regional AC office employs a
cadre of field veterinary medical

THE LAW
Animal
Care officers and animal care

Within USDA, APHIS’ Animal Care
(AC) program is responsible for
administering the AWA. AC's
mission is to provide leadership in
establishing acceptable standards
of care and treatment and to
monitor and achieve compliance
through educational and
cooperative efforts.

The AC program is headquarted in
Riverdale, MD, and has three
tegional offices in Annapolis, MD,
Fort Worth, TX, and Sacramento,
CA. These offices are charged
with enforcing the AWA in each of
their respective areas. The map on
this page shows AC’s regional
structure. The box on the right
provides the addresses, phone
numbers, and fax numbers for all
AC offices, as well as AC’s home
page on the World Wide Web and
e-mail address for incoming

inspectors. The number of field
inspectors at the end of FY 1997
was 72. These employees are
highly qualified and have an
excellent professional support
system and communication
network. Many also have
specialized interest and expertise
in such areas as the care of
laboratory animals, zoo animals,
or marine mammals.

{n enforcing the AWA, APHIS
inspectors work closely with other
Federal agencies and frequently
interact with regulated
professional groups, industry
organizations, humane groups,
the scientific community, and
other concerned associations or
individuals. In FY 1997, AC
personnel attended about 450
industry training sessions and
meetings and gave presentations
at 70 of them.

USDA-APHIS-ANIMAL CARE

Headquarters Office

Western Region |

4700 River Road, Unit 84
Riverdale, MD. 20737-1234
Phone: (301) 7344981

9580 Micron Ave., Suite J
Sacramento, CA 95827
Phone: (916) 857-6205
Fax: (916) 857-6212

correspondence. Fax: (301) 734-4978.
Eastern Region ]
ANIMAL CARE 2568-A Riva Road, #302

Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: (410) 571-8692
Fax: (410) 224-2854

Central Re

P.O. Box 6258

Fort Worth Federal Center,
Building 11

Fort Worth, TX 76115

Phone: (817) 885-6910

Fax: (817) 885-6917

World Wide Web
Homepage

www.aphis.usda.gov/ac

E-mail Address

ace@aphis.usda.gov



Standards for Laboratory Animals
Act, established standards for the
exercise of dogs and
psychological well-being of
nonhuman primates. The
amendments also set standards to
minimize the pain and distress of
animals; ensure the proper use of
anesthetics, analgesics, and
tranquilizers; and require
researchers to consider
alternatives to painful procedures.

To ensure that these standards are
met, the amendments require each
fesearch facility to establish an
Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee to approve and
monitor all research conducted at
the institution. USDA published
the final regulations for parts 1
and 2 of Title 9, CFR, Chapter 1,
Subchapter A, on August 31,
1989; those for Part 3 were
published on February 15, 1991.

In June 1990, USDA began
regulating horses used for
biomedical or other nonagricul-
tural research and other farm
animals used for biomedical or
other nonagricultural research or
for nonagricultural exhibition.
Currently, the standards in Title 9,
CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter A,
Part 3, Subpart F, apply. USDA is
considering establishing specific
standards for these animals.

USDA published revised standards
for guinea pigs, hamsters, and
fabbits in final form in the Federal
Register on July 15, 1990. These
standards increased the minimum
space requirements and provided
additional requirements to protect
animals being transported via
common carrier.

In 1993, USDA established
holding periods for animals in
pounds and shelters and
certification requirements to
ensure that animals have been
held for the duration of these
periods. The regulations were
published as a final rule on

July 22, 1993, and became effec-
tive August 23, 1993.

In FY 1997, USDA published a
final rule that removed the
provisions allowing the permanent
tethering of dogs as a means of
primary enclosure. The temporary
tethering of dogs for health or
other reasons is permitted if
licensees obtain approval from
their AC inspector or regional
office. The final rule on this matter
went into effect September 12,
1997.



CHARTING THE FUTURE:
AC’S STRATEGIC DIRECTION

In April 1996, AC launched its
strategic direction initiative to
examine all aspects of program
operations and identify areas for
improvement. Specifically, the
initiative focused on enhancing
statutory, regulatory, and proced-
ural authorities; providing pro-
active leadership in establishing
acceptable practices of animal care
and treatment; maximizing
Tesources for enhanced program
delivery and efficiency; respond-
ing to external concerns and
expectations through objective
action; and empowering, support-
ing, and developing employees,
To support this initiative, AC
established nine employee-based
work teams to make each
component in the strategic
direction a reality.

© Internal and external training is
developing training and
outreach programs for AC
inspectors and AWA licensees
and registrants, respectively.

Horse protection is developing
a strategic plan that will
leverage our enforcement
resources through partnership
with industry. This plan will be
published early in calendar year
1998.

Program results monitoring is
measuring service delivery and
customer satisfaction and
identifying areas for
improvement.

* Animal Care management is
monitoring overall program
operations throughout the
country and identifying areas for
increasing efficiency and
effectiveness.

© Revised inspection procedures
is identifying areas for improv-
ing existing inspection methods.

© Regulation, Act, and policy is
identifying areas where the
existing laws, regulations, and
policies can be modified or
enhanced,

Animal Care manual has revised
the AC policy manual and is
developing an inspector
teference manual.

© Computer oversight is
identitying ways to improve
AC's computer data base and
information system and to apply
greater computer technology to
AC's field activities.

These teams have made
tremendous progress in improving
AC's program delivery. The
remainder of this section discus-
ses their significant accomplish-
ments during FY 1997.

Performance-Based
Management

Under the Government Perform-
ance and Results Act, AC has taken
an active role in measuring its
effectiveness in meeting the AWA’
mandate. Toward this end, AC has
identified seven specific
performance indicators: percent-
age of facilities in compliance,
percentage of animals affected by
noncompliance, average number of
days until a case is resolved,
percentage of employee participa-
tion in the inspection quality and
uniformity program, and average
customer satisfaction with the AWA
fegulations, the program's
informational materials and elec-
tronic access, and overall program
delivery.

AC is also working to establish
baseline levels of performance for
each of these indicators and goals
for improving in the future. For the
first three indicators, AC is using
its Licensee Application and

Registrant Information System
(LARIS) data base, which provides
historical inspection data.
Through this system, AC has
already established a baseline for
the percentage of facilities in
compliance (55.7 percent) and a
goal (60 percent) for FY 1999. AC
is currently gathering baseline
data for the other two indicators.

For the fourth indicator, AC has
developed an Inspection Quality
and Uniformity Program. This
program will provide inspectors
from different regions of the
country the opportunity to work
together to exchange ideas,
identity any disparities in
inspection procedures, and
provide recommendations to
Management. AC's baseline level
of participation in this program is
4.2 percent. It has set an
ambitious goal of increasing this
to 50 percent by FY 1999.

ia


INSPECTION HIGHLIGHTS

AC personnel perform three major
types of inspections: prelicensing
and preregistration inspections,
unannounced compliance inspec-
tions, and auction market observa-
tions, The personnel also attempt
to conduct numerous inspections
that cannot be performed for vari-
‘ous reasons, such as a facility
being closed on the day of an
unannounced inspection.

AC personnel perform prelicensing
inspections of dealers and
exhibitors prior to granting them
licenses to determine whether they
are in compliance with the AWA.
Preregistration inspections are not
tequired under the Act, but many
facilities request AC's consultation.
Whenever possible, the program
honors these requests to promote
the highest level of compliance.

Unannounced compliance inspec-
tions are performed at the facilities
of all licensees and registrants to
ascertain whether they are operat-
ing within the regulations. The
AWA requires that APHIS perform
at least one compliance inspection
per year at each research facility
that uses animals in experimenta-
tion. Agency policy currently sets
the same minimum for all other
regulated entities using animals.

If conditions are discovered during
these inspections that are not in
compliance with the regulations,
AC either establishes a deadline
for correcting these items or, for
violations that cause unnecessary
suffering or death, immediately
investigates the matter. Inspectors
are required to reinspect any
facilities where deadlines are
given. If the conditions remain
uncorrected, AC documents them
for possible legal action.

Auction market observations are
conducted to determine whether
animals covered under the AWA
are receiving care that meets the
standards and regulations. They
are also performed to examine
buyers’ and sellers’ acquisition
and disposition records for AWA
Tegulated animals.

APHIS’ New Inspection Strategy:
More Indepth Inspections

In fiscal year 1997, AC modified
its inspection strategy. After 30
years of focusing on conducting
as many inspections as possible,
the program began performing

more indepth inspections—
particularly of those licensees and
registrants who historically had
compliance problems.

The result is a slight decrease in
overall number of inspec-tions but
a significant increase in the
amount of time spent inspecting
individual facilities. AC used this
time to more carefully inspect
licensees’ and registrants’ animals,
structures, and records—an

PRELICENSING/PREREGISTRATION INSPECTIONS, FY 1995-97
Preregistration
Prelicensing inspections of inspections of
FY Total Dealers Exhibitors tesearch facilities
1997 2,150 1,525 589 36
1996 1,932 1,355 533 44
1995 1,934 1,369 529 36
COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS, FY 1995-97 AUCTION MARKET
OBSERVATIONS,
Total Total FY 1995-97
facilities compliance
FY (sites) inspections
Total
auction market
1997 7,819
(10.534) 12.087 FY observations
1996 7,837
(10,366) 12,635 1997 7
1996 59
1995 7,721 4995 91
(10,108) 14,722



PUBLIC OUTREACH

In FY 1997, AC carried out
numerous outreach activities,
including launching a multiyear
public affairs campaign to educate

and inform all program stake- new products where needed.
holders about the AWA and AC's
AC Report Provides

Program Insights

In March 1997, the Animal Care
Report was the first product to roll
off the press under AC's new public
affairs campaign. This quarterly
report, which provides brief
overviews on all key issues
affecting AC's administration of the
AWA, is mailed at no charge to
program stakeholders to keep them
up to date on current program

Safe Pet Travel
Promoted

In September 1997, AC launched a
key component in its public affairs
campaign: an initiative to educate
members of the general public
about traveling safely with their
pets. To support the campaign, AC
distributed three different
informational pieces—a new, full-
color brochure that gives an
overview of both the AC and airline
tequirements for transporting
animals on commercial airplanes,
a factsheet that contains similar
information, and a sticker labeled
“Live Animals” to place on kennels
to meet the AWA requirements.

role in enforcing the law. To
support this effort, the program is
upgrading all of its existing public
affairs materials and producing

initiatives. Editions of the report
were prepared in March, June,
and September and mailed to
more than 1,500 subscribers. The
Teport is also posted on APHIS’
World Wide Web site. From the
agency's homepage, the
embedded search engine will take
users directly to previous and
current issues.

AC is also promoting its toll-free,
24-hour, automated telephone
voice response service (800-545—
USDA). This service provides
information on the humane
handling of cats and dogs during
transport, including the AWA

AC is also improving communi-
cation with stakeholders via its
World Wide Web site. AC's site
Tequirements for temperature, (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac)
shipping documents, food and provides information on the AWA
water, and cage sizes. Designed to regulations, a list of available AC
be user friendly, the service is publications, and much more. It is
recommended for inclusion in also linked to numerous other
training courses for airline cargo

handlers, ticket agents, and

supervisors.

AC Jumps on the Electronic
Superhighway

sites of organizations involved in
animal care and well-being. In the
summer of 1996, AC’s missing
pets page—a part of the Web site
developed by an AC headquarters
employee—was highly acclaimed
for the important service it pro-
vides pet owners.


USDA
—_

Deen Animal Welfare Report ©

Agriculture
Pint Heath Fiscal Year 1997
sevice Report of the Secretary of Agriculture

to the President of the Senate and

APHIS ASSO the Speaker of the House of Representatives



INSPECTIONS BY BUSINESS TYPE

Licensed
Dealers

Dealers are individuals who sell
regulated animals for research or
teaching; wild or exotic animals
for exhibition or as pets; or
domestic pet animals in wholesale
channels.

There are two classes of dealer
licensees. Class A licensees are
those individuals who deal only in
animals that they breed and raise.
Class B licensees include brokers,
operators of auction sales, and
“bunchers.”

The numbers of Class A and B
licensed dealers and sites for

FY 1995 through 1997 are listed
below. The number of inspections
conducted during the same period
is shown on chart 1. It should be
Noted that, of the 1,099 Class B
dealers, APHIS estimates that

fewer than 40 supply dogs and
cats to research.
AAND B DEALERS, FY 1995-97 LICENSED DEALERS, FY 1995-97
7,000
. (FY 1995 6418
FY 1996 Total Class A Class B
vow} ig ier Ps dealers dealers dealers
i it it
5,000 neo ans a 4.084.266 4287 FY (sites) (sites) (sites)
eae 1997 4,043 2,996 1,047
3,000 (4,387) (3,151) (1,236)
1.000 1996 4,075 2,976 1,099
1,000 (4,265) (3,043) (1,222)
Oo erm - 1995 4,080 2,967 1,113
Number of facilities Total sites Inspections (4,325) (3,056) (1,269)
‘Numbers from Work-Based Budget System (WBBS) reports

Chart 1



AC Inspectors Go Beyond

the Numbers

AC inspectors routinely do
exceptional work that goes beyond
the call of duty and is not reflected
in the numbers above. The
vignettes below describe three of
these exceptional efforts.

© In mid-1997, a small aquarium
in Maine went bankrupt and was
taken over by the Small
Business Administration (SBA),
placing in jeopardy two old
harbor seals that were long-time
residents at the facility. In
response, the AC inspector in
the area visited the facility
several times to check on the
seals and assure that they were
receiving the special treatment
they needed.

He also worked with the owners,
caretakers, and auctioneer hired
to sell the animals to ensure
that the seals would not be
auctioned off as property, and
he cooperated with the
Department of Commerce's
National Marine Mammal
Fisheries Service, which
oversees the transfer of such
animals. With his assistance,
the harbor seals were subse-
quently transported to a new
facility.

© In August, the heatwave that
plagued the Midwestern United
States worried AC's inspector in
southern Illinois. He was aware
that one of his licensees, who
owned a cougar and several
bobcats, was hiding from the
law and was not providing his
animals with proper care. The
inspector became even more
concerned when he spoke to
family members and found that
the licensee was not around
during the day to provide water
to his cats.

Working with State wildlife
Officials, the inspector provided
water to the cougar and bobcats
in the middle of a 100-degree
day. In a followup visit the next
day, the inspector and State
officials persuaded the owner to
telocate the animals to another
licensee's facility. The inspector
has since assisted in the
relocation of the animals, and
formal investigation of potential
AWA violations has been
completed and is under
Departmental review.

© In the summer of 1997, a
licensee in Colorado abandoned
his facility, placing the health of
his exotic cats in jeopardy. In
response, several AC field
personnel worked with officials
from Alamosa County, the
Pueblo Zoo, and The Humane
Society of the United States to
remove about 30 large felines
from the facility.

To expedite the removal, one of
AC's inspectors made several
visits to the facility—some
coordinated with the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, a local
veterinarian, and the Alamosa
County Sheriff. All of the
felines are now housed at
USDA-licensed facilities in
good standing. An investigative
case on this matter is under
Departmental review.


Investigation—Anquiries and
examination of allegation(s) that a
person or facility is not complying
with the AWA or its regulations or
standards.

License classes—

© A Class A licensee is anyone
meeting the definition of
“dealer” whose business
consists only of animals that are
bred and raised on the premises
ina closed or stable colony and
those animals acquired for the
sole purpose of maintaining or
enhancing the breeding colony.

A Class B licensee is anyone
meeting the definition of a
“dealer” whose business
includes the purchase and/or
tesale of any animal. Class B
licensees include brokers and
operators of auction sales, as
such individuals negotiate or
arrange for the purchase, sale,
or transport of animals in
commerce.

.

A Class C licensee is anyone
meeting the definition of an
“exhibitor” whose business
involves the showing or
displaying of animals to the
public.

Random source dogs and cals—
Animals acquired from animal
pounds and shelters, auction
sales, or from any person who did
not breed and raise the animals on
his or her premises.

Registrant—Any research facility,
cartier, intermediate handler, or
exhibitor whose primary business
is not required to be licensed by
the AWA. Ifa registered facility
conducts an activity that requires
a license, then it will also be
licensed for that activity. For
example, some research facilities
have a dealer license in addition to
their registration because they
occasionally sell surplus animals
to other research facilities.

Research facility—Any school
(other than elementary or
secondary), institution, organiza-
tion, or person that uses or
intends to use live animals in
research, tests, or experiments,
and that; (1) purchases or
transports live animals in
commerce or, (2) receives funds
under a grant, award, loan, or
contract from a department,
agency, or instrumentality of the
United States for the purpose of
carrying out research, tests, or
experiments.

© An active registered research
facility is a USDA-registered
research facility that currently
utilizes animals covered by the
AWA for teaching, testing, or
experimentation.

© An inactive registered research
facility is a USDA-registered
Tesearch facility that currently
does not utilize animals covered
by the AWA for teaching,
testing, or experimentation.

Retail pet store—Any outlet where
only the following animals are
sold or offered for sale, at retail,
for use as pets: dogs, cats,
rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters,
gerbils, rats, mice, gophers,
chinchillas, domestic ferrets,
domestic farm animals, birds,
coldblooded species, and other
common small pets. Retail pet
stores do not include any estab-
lishment or persons who (1) deal
in dogs used for hunting, security,
or breeding purposes; (2) exhibit,
sell, or offer to exhibit or sell, any
wild or exotic or other nonpet
species of warmblooded animals
(except birds) such as skunks,
raccoons, nonhuman primates,
squirrels, ocelots, foxes, coyotes,
etc.; (3) sell warmblooded animals
(except birds and laboratory rats
and mice) for research or exhibi-
tion purposes; (4) wholesale any
animals (except birds and labora-
tory rats and mice); or (5) exhibit
pet animals in a room that is
separate from or adjacent to the
retail pet store, or in an outside
area, or anywhere off the retail pet
store premises.

Search—Activity associated with
finding unlicensed or unregistered
entities.

Site—The physical location where
animals are used, housed, or
maintained by a licensed or
registered facility. A licensed or
registered facility may have one or
more animal sites. A site may bea
room, building, outdoor run area,
or similar type of facility used to
hold or work on animals.

Stipulation—An agreement by a
violator to accept assessment of a
civil penalty, license suspension,
or combination of both. The
stipulation procedure is used
instead of formal administrative
hearings. Alleged violators are
offered the opportunity to waive a
hearing by agreeing to enter into a
stipulation, in which case they will
pay a specified civil penalty and/or
have their license suspended for a
specified period.

Violation—An area or item, at a
registered or licensed facility,
found to be out of compliance with
the regulations or standards of the
AWA.


GLOSSARY

Airport inspection—individual
airline inspections of cargo and
baggage areas made at airports for
compliance with the AWA regula-
tions and standards.

Alleged violation—A violation of
the AWA regulations or standards
that has been documented as
existing but has not been legally
concluded.

Carrier—The operator of any
airline, railroad, motor carrier,
shipping line, or other enterprise
that is engaged in the business of
transporting any animals for hire.

Commerce—trade, traffic, or
transportation that is between a
place in a State and any place
outside of such State (including
foreign countries), or between
points within the same State but
through any place outside of the
State.

Complaints—{1) A civil or
administrative complaint informs
the alleged violator of the AWA
about allegations charged against
him/her. (2) A public complaint is
information received from citizens,
humane groups, or others con-
cerning possible violations of the
AWA, regulations, or standards at
animal facilities.

Compliance—The status of a
facility that meets all of the regula~
tory requirements set forth in the
AWA regulations and standards.

Dealer—Any person who, in
commerce, for compensation or
profit, delivers for transportation,
or transports (except as a carrier),
buys, or sells, or negotiates the
purchase or sale of (1) any dog or
other animal whether alive or dead
(including unborn animals,
organs, limbs, blood, serum, or
other parts) for research, teaching,
testing, experimentation, exhibi-
tion, or for use as a pet; or (2) any
dog for hunting, security, or
breeding purposes. The term
dealer does not include a retail pet
store unless such store sells any
animals to a research facility, an
exhibitor, or to a dealer
(wholesale); or any person who
does not sell, or negotiate the
purchase or sale, of any wild or
exotic animal, dog, or cat and who
Gerives no more than $500 gross
income from the sale of animals,
dogs, or cats, during any calendar
yeal.

Enforcement—The activities
undertaken by USDA and APHIS/
AC and \ES personnel to ensure
that the AWA’s regulations and
standards are met. Enforcement
includes developing alleged
violation cases and taking action
in the form of Letters of Warning,
warning tickets, stipulations,
administrative complaints,
hearings, trials, and other legal
procedures and methods to obtain
compliance.

Exhibitor—Any person (public or
private) exhibiting any animals
which were purchased in com-
merce or the intended distribution
of which affects commerce, or will
affect commerce, to the public for
compensation. Exhibitors include
carnivals, circuses, animal acts,
2008, and educational exhibits,

whether exhibiting for profit or not.

The term exhibitor excludes most
fetail pet stores, horse and dog
taces, organizations sponsoring,
and all persons participating in
State and county fairs, livestock
shows, rodeos, field trials, cours-
ing events, purebred dog and cat
shows, and any other fairs or
exhibitions intended to advance
agricultural arts and sciences.

Facility—A facility is the holder of
the license or registration. Each
facility may have only one license
or registration number but may be
physically divided into two or
more sites.

Inspections—

© Attempted inspection—An
inspection that could not be
completed, including those
where representatives of the
inspected entities were not
onsite or transportation facilities
were found to have no animals
present.

© Compliance inspection—An
unannounced inspection
completed, after licensing or
registration, to determine the
facility’s compliance with the
AWA regulations and standards.
Compliance inspections include
feinspections.

© Prelicensing or Preregistration
inspection—An announced
inspection made, after applica-
tion for licensure or registration
has been submitted, to ascertain
compliance with the AWA regu-
lations and standards prior to
licensing or registering the
facility. Prelicensing inspec-
tions are required. Preregis-
tration inspections, although
not required, are often per-
formed upon request of the
facility.

© Reinspection—An inspection
made following a compliance
inspection in which one or more
violations were documented.

Intermediate handler—Any person
who is engaged in any business
teceiving custody of animals in
connection with their transporta-
tion in commerce. This definition
excludes dealers, research facili-
ties, exhibitors, operators of
auction sales, and carriers.


AC’s New
Management Team

In FY 1997, APHIS appointed a
new and energetic management
team for AC. This team is led by
Dr. Ron DeHaven, the current
Acting Deputy Administrator.
DeHaven was head of AC's
Western Sector Office from 1988
until his move to AC headquarters
in November 1996. Supporting
DeHaven are three new regional
directors: Dr. Elizabeth Goldentyer
in the Eastern Region, Dr. Walter

Animal Care
Appropriations
for FY 1997

In FY 1997, the AC program
teceived appropriations totaling
about $9 million for activities
telated to animal welfare. The
table below shows APHIS’ animal-
welfare-related appropriations for
FY 1993 through FY 1997.

Christensen in the Central Region,
and Dr. Robert Gibbens in the
Western Region. Gibbens and
Goldentyer were formerly
supervisory officials in the old AC
Western Sector and Southeast
Sector offices. Christensen was
head of the former Central Sector
Office. All are veterinarians with
many years of experience with AC
and extensive knowledge
regarding the AWA.

APPROPRIATIONS
FOR ANIMAL
WELFARE,

Annual appropriation
for enforcement of the
FY Animal Welfare Act

1997 $9,182,000
1996 $9,185,000
1995 $9,262,000
1994 $9,262,000

Investigative and

Enforcement Services

Complementing AC's efforts is
APHIS’ Investigative and Enforce-
ment Services (IES) program. IES
supports all APHIS programs in
the goal of enhancing compliance
with agency regulations. Toward
this end, IES utilizes comprehen-
sive investigations and sound
enforcement actions. IES also

Animal Welfare

works closely with USDA's Office
of the General Counsel, other
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and industry
groups. IES is headquarted in
Riverdale, MD, and has regional
offices in Annapolis and Fort
Worth.

Information Center

The National Agricultural Library's
(NAL) Animal Welfare Information
Center (AWIC) also supports AC's
efforts. AWIC was established in
December 1986 to provide
valuable information pertaining to
possible duplication of research
involving animals, methods of
humane animal care and use,
alternatives to the use of live
animals in research, and methods
to minimize pain and distress to
animals. AWIC also provides
materials for the training of
personnel and other products and
services that support the
administration and regulatory
Tequirements of the AWA.

The Center is located in Beltsville,
MD. The box in this column
provides AWIC's street address
and telephone number, as well as
its e-mail address.

USDA-NAL-AWIC

AWIC Coordinator

National Agricultural Library
10301 Baltimore Blvd.
Beltsville, MD 20705

(301) 504-6212

E-mail

awic@nal.usda.gov



| Paving the Way for Input
From the Field

To keep current with the
program's regulatory needs, AC
has established a formal system
for receiving input from its field
personnel on the front lines.
Through this system, AC's field
force can make suggestions and

provide input on legislative,
fegulatory, and policy changes.”
By the end of FY 1997, field
personnel had offered more than
40 suggestions, 6 of which are
being studied for possible
regulatory changes.

New Complete and Concise

Policy Manual

In May 1997, AC published a new
policy manual that consolidates
and replaces all previous memo-
fanda and response letters. The
policies are intended to increase
the quality and uniformity of AWA
teports, inspections, and enforce-
ment. They also are the first part
of AC’s effort to develop a program
manual with workable, comprehen-
sive, and user-friendly guidelines.

AC's policies explain, clarify, and
interpret existing AWA standards
and regulations. Although pri-
marily for the use of AC inspec-

tors, the new policies are available

to all program stakeholders upon
request and via AC’s homepage
on the World Wide Web.

Environmental Enrichment

for Primates

Based on the results of a survey
on performance-based
standards published in
December 1996, AC began
developing guidelines for the
environmental enrichment of
nonhuman primates. These
guidelines will provide both AC
inspectors and regulated parties

with a uniform and well-
understood set of principles as to
what constitutes adequate
environmental enrichment. When
complete, the guidelines will be a
valuable tool for improving the
enrichment provided to nonhuman
primates. at regulated facilities
throughout the United States.


AWIC Focuses on
Educational Efforts

In FY 1997, the Animal Welfare
Information Center staff
responded to about 27,145
tequests for reference services
and specific publications,
including copies of the AWIC
Newsletter, and it distributed
more than 38,000 publica-
tions. AWIC’s web site
(http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic)
was also visited more than 1,300
times. The quarterly AWIC
Newsletter continues to be sent
to about 6,700 requestors in the
United States and 38 foreign
countries.

AWIC also trained more than 287
individuals in its workshop
entitled “Meeting the Information
Requirements of the Animal
Welfare Act,” which is held at the
National Agricultural Library and
at other locations throughout the
country. In addition, AWIC
Officials interacted with more
than 2,500 people who visited
their booth at various
conferences and witnessed more
than 1,300 people attend
presentations about AWIC and
the animal welfare program at
universities, conferences, and
professional meetings.

AWIC staff also developed a
computer CD ROM disk that
contains numerous official
documents related to animal
welfare (such as the AWA itself
and the National Institutes of
Health’s Guide for the Care and
Use of Laboratory Animals).
This project was funded by
APHIS' AC, the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services’
Public Health Service and
National Institutes of Health, and
NAL. Since December 1996,
AWIC has distributed 1,263
copies of the disc.

Recently, AWIC officials have
participated in a broadly
supported effort to produce a
searchable information resource
on alternatives to animal
experimentation. The site,
currently called ALTWEB, is
managed by the Johns Hopkins
Center for Alternatives to Animal
Testing.



LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY: |
ANEW REI ORT FOR A NEW ER.

You may have noticed the new
look of this report. As in past
years, it still provides all of the
data on our inspection and
enforcement actions. However, it
also provides indepth coverage of
the initiatives we have launched to
make better use of our resources
and improve our enforcement of
the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
Our goal in doing this is simple:
we want to provide you not only
with the numbers but also with
insights into the numerous
behind-the-scenes changes we
have made to improve our
administration of the law.

Indeed, we initiated so many new
business practices during fiscal
year (FY) 1997 that it may be
Temembered as the year a new era
in AWA enforcement was born.
One of these changes involves our
inspections.

After 30 years of focusing almost
entirely on conducting as many
inspections as possible, we shifted
our strategy to conducting fewer
but more indepth inspections,
particularly of those licensees and
registrants who historically had
compliance problems. This
approach resulted in a slight
decrease in the overall number of
inspections but a significant
increase in the amount of time
spent inspecting facilities. We
used this time to take a closer look
at licensees’ and registrants’
animals, facilities, and records.

Similarly, we redirected our
enforcement efforts away from a
Tigid, one-size-fits-all philosophy
to a flexible approach that
evaluates cases on their individual
merits. This approach enables us
to work with individuals who
fecognize their errant ways and
want to improve the welfare of
their animals. At the same time, it
allows us to impose stringent
sanctions on licensees and
registrants who continue to show
little or no effort to provide better
care or housing for their animals.
Also, we have significantly
reduced a backlog of AWA cases
that developed over the past
several years and the time it takes
to resolve cases.

Under our umbrella strategic
direction initiative, we also began
preparing our Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service's
(APHIS) Animal Care (AC)
program for the 21st century. This
change initiative involves
employees from all levels of the
program and is aimed at making
AC a recognized leader in the field
of animal welfare.

In FY 1997, we advanced the
initiative in many ways, such as
equipping all AC field personnel
with laptop computers on which
they now generate inspection
teports and developing a formal
risk-based inspection system that
will eventually enable us to direct
our limited inspection resources
where they are needed most. In
fact, Vice President Gore made
parts of the strategic direction
initiative a reinvention laboratory
because of its innovative approach
to improving AWA enforcement.

Complementing this initiative were
several special projects. These
projects include the launching of a
quarterly report to the program's
stakeholders—a sign of our
increased emphasis on public
outreach. Animal Care also
increased efforts to partner with its
sister program, Veterinary
Services, in inspecting animal
handlers at airports.

Perhaps most impressive,
however, was our ongoing effort to
trace back dogs and cats sold by
class B dealers to research
facilities. In FY 1997, we were
able to trace back an impressive
95.5 percent of animals sold to
Tesearch to their original source—
up from approximately 40 percent
in FY 1993.

We believe all these efforts are
leading to one positive end:
improved welfare for all animals
protected under the AWA. And we
Temain committed to improving
our operations even further in the
coming years. We hope you enjoy
this new format for the Animal
Welfare Report and find it helpful
in providing a comprehensive
perspective on our AWA
enforcement efforts.


Research
Facilities

Research facilities that use
animals include hospitals,
colleges and universities,
diagnostic laboratories, and many
private firms in the pharmaceutical
and biotechnology industries.

All research facilities are required
to comply with the AWA
regulations. Even though Federal
facilities are not registered or
inspected under the AWA, they are
responsible for maintaining

compliance with the AWAS
regulations and standards. The
AWA requires that non-Federal
research facilities receive at least
‘one unannounced inspection per
year to determine compliance.

Listed below are the number of
research facilities and sites for
FY 1995 through 1997. Chart 4
shows the number of inspections
of research facilities conducted
during this period.

REGISTERED RESEARCH FACILITIES,
TOTAL SITES AND INSPECTIONS, FY 1995-97

‘me Ga FY 1995

FY 1996 520
4 FY 1997 i
3,000
2,000 +

J 1,300 1,264 1,248
1,004

Number of facilities

Total sites Inspections

‘Numbers from Work-Based Budget System (WBBS) reports

Chart 4

REGISTERED RESEARCH FACILITIES

AND SITES, FY 1995-97
Total Total
FY facilities sites
1997 1,243 2,410
1996 1,264 2,506
1995 1,200 2,688



ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS

APHIS’ IES personnel investigate
alleged violations when corrective
Measures have not been taken by
licensees or registrants to come
into compliance with the AWA.

Investigations disclosing viola-
tions are acted on in a variely of
ways depending on their severity.
Many infractions can be settled
with an official notice of warning
ora stipulation offer. (Stipulations
allow alleged violators to pay a
fine, have their license suspended,

APHIS’ New Enforcement

Strategy

FY 1997 was an extremely
successful year from an AWA
enforcement perspective. The
major reason for this success was
AC and IES’ new two-pronged
enforcement strategy.

For licensees and registrants who
show an interest in improving the
conditions for their animals, AC
and IES actively pursue innovative
penalties that allow the individuals
to invest part or all of their
monetary sanctions in facility
improvements. In doing so, USDA
enables the individuals to immedi-
ately improve the conditions for
their animals while sending a clear
message that future violations will
not be tolerated. In the past, most
such fines were either suspended
or paid directly to the U.S.
Treasury but neither of those
fesults directly improved the plight
of the violators’ animals.

or both, in lieu of formal
administrative proceedings.)

Cases warranting formal prosecu-
tion undergo Department-level
teview for legal sufficiency prior to
issuance of a formal administrative
complaint. Formal cases may be
resolved by license suspensions,
revocations, cease-and-desist
orders, civil penalties, or combina-
tions of these penalties through
administrative procedures.

On the other hand, for licensees
and registrants who do not
improve the conditions for their
animals, AC and IES move swiftly
and pursue stringent enforcement
action. Such action typically

includes significant monetary j
penalties and/or license Innovati ve
suspensions or revocations. It Penalties

may also include confiscation of
their animals and relocation to
another facility if the animals are
found to be suffering.

© In February 1997, APHIS
settled a case with a large
registered research facility for a
$30,000 fine—$20,000 of
which was required to be used
to pur-chase supplies, perform
facility maintenance, and
provide training to employees.
AC had cited each of these
areas as being in need of
improve-ment to ensure
compliance with the AWA.

AC's strategy focuses on making
the welfare of the animals the top
priority in all enforcement actions.
The examples that follow highlight
cases from the past year that
illustrate both components of AC
and IES’ new enforcement strategy.

© In March 1997, APHIS settled a
case with an animal exhibitor
for $6,000 and a 30-day license
suspension. Of the $6,000 civil
penalty, $3,000 had to be used
for facility improvement to
address noncompliant items
pertaining to pest control,
housing, and food storage.

© In June 1997, APHIS and a
licensed dealer settled a case
for a civil penalty of $4,000. Of
that sum, $3,000 had to be used
for facility improvements to
address AC inspectors’
concerns with housing and
waste disposal at the facility.



Special Initiatives
Class B Dealer Traceback Reaps Benefits
Testing for Tuberculosis (TB) in Etephants
APHIS Staff Assists AC With Airport Inspections

Public Outreach
AC Report Provides Program Insights
Safe Pet Travel Promoted
AC Jumps on the Electronic Superhighway
Assisting the Media
Answering Public Inquiries
AC Joins E-FOIA Universe
Liaison With Other Federal Agencies
Cooperating and Communicating With Stakeholders
AWIC Focuses on Educational Efforts

Regulatory and Policy Initiatives
New “Pocket Pet” Policy
Doris Day Animal League Petition
Input Sought on Training and Handling Dangerous Animals
Perimeter Fencing Examined
Additional Regulatory Initiatives

Glossary of Terms

Appendix

Table 1. Number of Licensees and Registrants, by Facilities
and Number of Sites (FY 1997)

Table 2. Animals Used in Research (FY 1997)

Table 3. Animals Used in Research, No Pain or Distress—
No Drugs Needed for Relief (FY 1997)

Table 4. Animals Used in Research, With Pain or Distress—
With Drugs Used for Relief (FY 1997)

Table 5. Animals Used in Research, With Pain or Distress—
No Drugs Used for Relief (FY 1997)

Table 6. Animals Used by Research From the First
Reporting Year (1973) to the Present

Attachments
Animal Welfare: List of Licensed Dealers
Animal Welfare: List of Registered Research Facilities
Animal Welfare: List of Licensed Exhibitors and
Registered Exhibitors
Animal Welfare: List of Registered Carriers and
Intermediate Handlers

27

31



TABLE 6. NUMBER OF ANIMALS USED BY RESEARCH FROM
THE FIRST REPORTING YEAR (1973) TO THE PRESENT

Other
Guinea Farm covered

FY Dogs Cats Primates pigs Hamsters Rabbits animals animals! Totals
1973 195,157 » 66,195 42,298 408,970 454,986 447,570 ey 38,169 21,653,345
1974 199,204 74,259 $1,253 430,439 430,766 425,585 81,021 1,692,527
1975 154,489 51,439 36,202 436,446 456,031 448,530 42,523 71,625,660
1976 210,330 70,468 50,115 486,310 503,590 527,551 Boe 73,736 4,622,100
1977 176,430 62,311 53,116 348,741 (393,533 439,003 46,535 24,519,669.
1978 197,010. 65,929 57,009 419,341 414,304 475,162 cae 58,356 1,687,201
1979 211,104 69,103 59,359 457,134 419,504. 539,594 oe 76,247 1,832,045.
1980 188,783” 68,482 56,024 422,390 “405,826 471,297 Ree 49,102 ° 1,661,904
1981 188,649 58,090 57,515 432,632 397,522 473,922 : 50,111 1,658,441
1982 161,396 49,923 46,388 459,246 337,790 453,506 Te 69,043 1,577,292
1983 174,542. 53,344 54,926 485,048 337,023 466,810 108,549 1,680,242
1984 201,936 56,910 55,338 561,184 437,123... 529,101 232,541 2,074,133
1985 194,905: 59,211 57,271 598,903 414,460 544,621 284,416 2,153,787
1986 176,141 54,125 48,540 462,699 370,655 521,773 144,470 1,778,403
1987 180,169 50,145 61,392 538,998 416,002 554,385 168,032 1,969,123
1988 140,471 42,271 51,641 431,457 331,945 459,254 178,249 1,635,288
1989 186,443 50,812 51,688 481,712 389,042 471,037 153,722 1,754,456
1990 109,992 33,700 47,177 352,627 311,068 399,264 °66,702 °257,569 1,578,099
1991 107,908 34,613 42,620 378,582 304,207 396,046 214,759 363,685 1,842,420,
1992 124,161 38,592 55,105 375,063 369,585 431,432 210,936 529,308 2,134,182
1993 106,191 33,991 49,561 392,138 318,268 426,501 165,416. 212,309 4,704,505
1994 101,090 32,610 55,113 360,184 298,934 393,751 180,667 202,300 1,624,649
1995 89,420 29,569 50,206 333,379 248,402 354,076 163,985 126,426 1,395,463
1996 82,454 26,035 52,327 299,011 246,415 338,574 154,344 146,579 1,345,739
1997 75,429 26,091 56,381 272,797 217,079 309,322 159,742 150,987 1,267,828

“This category includes other covered species not specifically stated
in the regulations, such as bears, armadilios, squirrels, wild rodents,
etc. It does not include noncovered species, such as rats and mice
bred for laboratory use, frogs, lizards, birds, etc.

? These numbers reflect minor corrections from what was reported
‘nthe original annual reports of enforcement forthe specified fiscal
years.

“Traditional farm animals used for research purposes Nave
been reported only since 1990. Also, beginning in 1990, the
category of “Wild Animal” was renamed to “Other Animal.”

“These numbers have been corrected from what was reported
inthe annual report of enforcement for FY 1993. The reported
numbers were: Farm animals (365,233); Other animals
(677,556); and Total (2,369,439). The error was due to the
inadvertent counting of noncovered species in these
categories.



Assisting
the Media

In FY 1997, AC assisted media
officials in various ways.
Altogether, the program fielded
about 1,000 calls from members
of the media and issued
approximately 120 press releases.
Most of these releases provided
information concerning
enforcement actions taken against
licensees and registrants (such as
settlements, fines, suspensions,
and confiscations). The other
Teleases concerned matters such
as AC's notice on the Doris Day
Animal League petition and
request for information pertaining
to the training and handling of
potentially dangerous wild or
exotic animals.

AC personnel also gave numerous
local and national television,
Tadio, and newspaper/magazine
interviews on various issues
relating to the AWA. These
included interviews with CNN,
CBS, The New York Times, The
Wall Street Journal, and most
other national media outlets.

Answering Public
Inquiries

During FY 1997, APHIS received
and responded to thousands of
inquiries about animal welfare
from individual citizens, concerned
groups, the Office of the President,
and Members of Congress. Other
Federal agencies also refer animal
welfare concerns to APHIS for
fesponse. The next tabulation lists
the numbers of animal welfare
inquiries received by APHIS
during FY 1995 through 1997.

AC Joins the
E-FOIA Universe

In FY 1997, AC launched a project
that will eventually make most
program information available via
the World Wide Web. Under the
project, AC has already made the
names and locations of all
licensees and registrants
available. It is also making the

ANIMAL WELFARE CORRESPONDENCE
RECEIVED BY APHIS, FY 1995-97

Correspondence Correspondence
received/dispatched —_received/dispatched
FY by headquarters by regional offices
1997 4,188 20,396
1996 6,155 37,736
1995 5,853 28,162

Most recent inspection reports for
these individuals available and will
continue to add additional
information in the future. For all
who are interested, AC's
information can be accessed on
the APHIS Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) Web site
(http://foia.aphis.usda.gov).

AC also responded to numerous
animal-welfare-related FOIA
Tequests the old-fashioned way.
The next tabulation lists the
number of FOIA requests received
for the past 3 fiscal years.

ANIMAL-WELFARE-RELATED FOIA
REQUESTS RECEIVED BY APHIS, FY 1995-97

FOIA
FY requests
1997 824*
1996 403
1995 507

Tequests to reach an accurate total.

“This fique Includes both official FOIA requests processed through
APHIS’ FOIA office and requests for inspection reports processed
through AC regional offices. In prior years, all such requests were
processed through the FOIA office at headquarters; field-processed
requests have been added to the number of headquarters-processed



CONTENTS

Letter From the Secretary: A New Report for a New Era

The AWA: A Legislative and Regulatory History
The Law
The Regulations

How USDA Administers the Law
Animal Care
AC's New Management Team
AC Appropriations for FY 1997
Investigative and Enforcement Services
Animal Welfare Information Center

Inspection Highlights
APHIS’ New Inspection Strategy: More Indepth Inspections
Summary of Complaints and Searches
AC Inspectors Go Beyond the Numbers

Inspections by Business Type
Licensed Dealers
Animal Exhibitors
Carriers and Intermediate Handlers
Research Facilities
Reports From Research Facilities

Enforcement Highlights
APHIS’ New Enforcement Strategy
Innovative Penalties
Swift and Stringent Enforcement
The High-Priority Designation
The Bottom Line: A Reduced Backlog of Cases
and Significant Sanctions

Charting the Future: AC's Strategic Direction
Performance-Based Management
Customer Satisfaction Counts
Inspecting Based on Risk, Not Numbers
‘New, User-Friendly Inspection Guidelines
Bringing the Field Force Into the Electronic Age
Paving the Way for Input From the Field
New Complete and Concise Policy Manual
Environmental Enrichment for Primates

1

10

15

7


TABLE 2. ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH (FY 1997)

Other

Number of | Number of Guinea fam Other

registrants all animals Dogs Cats Primates pigs © Hamsters Rabbits © Sheep Pigs animals animals
Total United States 1,522 1,267,828 75,429 26,091 56,381 272,797 217,079 309,322 33,048 73,995 52,699 150,987
Total Research 4,282 1,108,938 73,580 25,408 51,619 + 255,780 196,166 296,841 18,686 63,566 32,239 95,053
Federal Agencies 240 158,890 1,849 683 4,762 «17,017 20,913 12,481 14,362 10,429 20,460 55,934
Alabama 18 8524 2,078 420 630 1,203 592,344 62 554 535 639
Alaska 7 406 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 385.
Arizona 13 5,956 496 78 121 248 472 1,113 44 515, 43 2,826:
Arkansas 12 2,565 264 St 193 660 108 785 0 290 0 214
California 201 190,236 3,295 «3,857 6,266 © 39,586 31,851 70,608 4,929 6594 = 8,405 14,845
Colorado 27 10,511 1,383 645 65 2,973 812 1,544 746 386 174 1,783
Connecticut 24 9596 1,047 98 239 1395 1,249 3,187 6 829 40 1,506
Delaware 10 17,468 1,775 195 31 4,973 4,985 4,185 0 50 0 1,274
District of Columbia 10 §,528 218 281 242 758 892 714 32 902 12 1,477
Florida 32 16,486 635 592 868 1,631 526 2,953 239 835. 174 8,033
Georgia 23 63,061 2,244 747 3,268 2,957 11,221 6,950 53 2,209 623 32,789
Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii § 367 0 1 16 165 0 50 0 106 7 12
Idaho 6 3,667 23 8 0 12 0 162 = 3,088 0 0 374
Mlinois 48 33,851 2,732 939 822 8,025 5,368 = 9,191 451 1,867 526 3,930
Indiana 26 12,258 3,192 425 283 1,730 1,082 2,998 178 1,413 291 666.
lowa 23 62,667 2,886 = 1,631 9 6557 37,517 5,354 252 4,557 3,600 304,
Kansas 22 29,354 1,730 713 108 5,009 15,989 3,562 7 867 407 852
Kentucky 13 4,801 346 147 7 581 843 2,058 33 210 8 458
Louisiana 16 17,627 1,190 571 10,294 1123 321 2,151 290 628 71 888
Maine 12 837 0 3 0 38 40 228 0 96 432 0
Maryland 60 59,454 1,552 743° © 4,808 «=—-13,888-—«11,965 11,660 712 2,960 293 10,923
Massachusetts 90 58,009 1,310 325 3,130 16,040 16,251 12,261 «1,257 «4,046 1,087 2,302
Michigan 39 32,418 = 3,942 1,300 856 7,021 1,389 8,747 536 775 174 7,728
Minnesota 31 27,491 2,392 4 288 6,885 9,298 3,846 762 = 2,242 884 483°
Mississippi 9 1,858 383 43 87 24 226 407 7 590 76 15.
Missouri 43 38,538 3,335,210 83 9,698 11,155 5,808 589 2,480 1,191 1,989
Montana 10 4,079 9 36 25 346 0 2,047 122 0 25 (1,469
Nebraska 16 68,784 791 363 64 2794 15,753 2,492 11,066 12,971 21,055 1,435
Nevada 5 3,469 166 0 = 1,405 862 6 94 308 0 0 628
New Hampshire 4 610 9 50 0 16 22 263 15 215 2 18
New Jersey 50 76,298 5,855 925 2,516 30,609 4,934 23,628 132 2,094 14 5,491
New Mexico 13 1,921 186 0 471 209 261 55 159 94 0 486,
New York 113 50,581 4,113 1,384 1,906 = 12,561 6,652 9,955 964 2,187 1,884 8,975
North Carolina 31 34573 1,779 701 2,206 = 10,661 «2,085 12,136 214 3,146 222 1,443
North Dakota 7 406 31 45 0 36 0 10 144 98 19 28
Ohio 54 60,461 = 4,820 761 686 «25,946 2,016 16,291 208 = 5,100 242 4,391
Oklahoma 20 3211 737 210 “ 582 106 418 63 48 97 879
Oregon 7 4,499 185 69 = 1,160 718 793 910 46 118 2 498
Pennsylvania 89 94330 6310 2,192 1974 32,567 3,925 39,922 872,219 1,201 3,148
Puerto Rico 9 2,302 88 0 1,806 36 106 54 0 WW 0 201
Rhode Island 8 1,797 15 121 36 132 24 164 190 271 249 595,
South Carolina 9 11,010 249 321 153 186 287 571 0 398 49 8,796
South Dakota 8 4,495 49 24 0 20 17 515 1,349 558 = 1,804 59
Tennessee 24 10,411 1,101 207 au 1,095 1,344 3,964 102 1,381 71 935
Texas 100 45591 2,741 891 3,909 6254 4,890 14,887 1,010 92712 3,502 4,795
Utah " 3,122 S77 59 7 541 465 901 198 154 39 181
Vermont 3 1,012 16 8 0 383. 104 256 0 7 2 146
Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Virginia 19 15,164 1,669 292 «1,142 819 1,682 5,754 78 892 331 2,505
Washington 37 47,413 1,275 243 888 3,132 2,000 3,597 316 485 136 5,341
West Virginia 8 1,483 55 92 9 637 51 339 63 20 0 217
Wisconsin 32 36,755 4,124 642 2,912 8519 5,904 7,225 = 1,088,727 2,449 1,220
Wyoming 5 517 18 13 0 6 3 8 13 3 4 2

E]



INITIATIVES

REGULATORY AND POLICY

New “Pocket Pet”
Policy

In March 1997, AC began
regulating retail dealers who sell
small, exotic animals known as
“pocket pets.” These animals
include glider squirrels (sugar
gliders), jerboas, and prairie dogs.

Doris Day Animal
League Petition

The Doris Day Animal League, an
animal protection organization
based in Washington, DC,
petitioned USDA to amend its
definition of “retail pet store” and
Tequire that dealers of dogs
intended for hunting, breeding, and
security be regulated under the
AWA. APHIS published the
petition in the Federal Register for
public comment in late March
1997, with the comment period
ending on May 27. APHIS officials
estimate that they received 36,000
comments on the petition.

Retail stores that sell pocket pets
are licensed as class “B” dealers
and must pass a prelicensing
inspection. Followup inspections
of these facilities will be
conducted on a complaint-driven
basis with a minimum of one
inspection every 3 years.

By the end of FY 1997, APHIS
Officials had reviewed the
comments on the petition. They
had also surveyed their field
inspectors to assess the petition’s
potential impact on the program's
workload and alternative scenarios
under which animal breeders and
dealers could be regulated.
However, the program had not
determined how to proceed on this
matter. Discussions continue
during the current fiscal year.

| Input Sought on Training and
Handling Dangerous Animals

On July 24, 1997, AC published a
Federal Register notice requesting
information on current “best”
practices for the training and
handling of potentially dangerous
wild and exotic animals. Among
other things, the notice sought
input on suggested experience
requirements for animal handlers

and trainers, as well as on
contingency plans for the
recapture of escaped or
uncontrollable animals. The
extended comment period was still
open at the end of FY 1997. AC
intends to use the information
received during the comment
period to aid in developing future
guidelines or rules on this issue.

Perimeter Fencing
Examined

On May 6, 1997, APHIS published
a proposed rule on perimeter
fencing requirements for animals
covered under the AWA, with
emphasis on wild and exotic
animals. The proposal does not
apply to nonhuman primates,
which are already covered under
subpart D of the AWA regulations.
In general, the proposed rule
requires a perimeter fence of at
least 6 feet in height for most
animals and 8 feet in height for
dangerous animals, such as
elephants and large cats.

For marine mammals, the
proposals fencing requirements
pertain only to the land, not water,
portions of any enclosures. All
Tequirements are designed to
better contain the animals and to
keep out unwanted animals. The
comment period on the proposal
closed July 7, and at the end of FY
1997, it was still undergoing
Departmental review.


Animal
Exhibitors

Animal exhibitors may either be
licensed or registered under the
AWA. Licensed exhibitors are
those entities that either obtain or
dispose of animals in commerce
or exhibit them for compensation.
Registered exhibitors do not buy,
sell, or transport animals and do
Not accept compensation.

Licensed exhibitors typically
operate animal acts, carnivals,

circuses, public zoos, “roadside
2008,” and marine mammal
displays. Many of the animals
exhibited are species not native to
the United States (e.g., nonhuman
primates and exotic cats), but
exhibited species may also include
domestic farm animals and wild
animals native to this country.

Listed below are the number of
exhibitors and sites regulated from
FY 1995 through 1997. Chart 2
shows the number of inspections
for the same period.

35007 6 Fy 1995

EXHIBITORS, FY 1995-97

‘Numbers from Work-Based Budget System (WBBS) reports

3,083
300+ my ed 2,851 2,851
2500 aap 2453
gg 2008 2128 =

2,000
1,500
1,000

500

0.
Number of facitities Total sites Inspections

Chart 2

REGULATED EXHIBITORS, FY 1995-97

Exhibitors
Total
exhibitors Licensed Registered
FY (sites) (sites) (sites)
1997 2,098 2,105 23
(2,540) (2,510) (30)
1996 2,098 2,073 25
(2,453) (2,422) (31)
1995 1,968 1,937 31
(2,339) (2,304) (35)



Reports From

Research Facilities

Each research facility registered
under the AWA and each Federal
research facility is required to
submit an annual report, signed
and certified by the Institutional
Official, covering the previous
fiscal year. The report lists the
number and species of animals
used in research, testing, and
experimentation, and indicates
whether pain-relieving drugs were
administered. If such drugs were
not administered, the report must
explain why their use would have
interfered with the research or
experiment.

The report must also assure that
professionally acceptable stand-
ards, including the appropriate use
of pain-relieving drugs, were fol-
{owed and that each principal
investigator considered alterna-
tives to painful or distress-causing
procedures.

Moreover, the report must demon-
strate that the facility adhered to
the AWA regulations or that any
exception to such adherence was
justified by the principal investiga-
tor and approved by the Institu-
tional Animal Care and Use
Committee prior to
experimentation.

Chart 5 shows the number and
species of animals used in
research during FY 1997. This
number excludes birds and labora-
tory rats and mice, as well as farm
animals used exclusively in
agricultural research. Chart 6
shows the number of animals used
in research that involved no pain
or distress, or that involved pain

4

Millions
16

Dogs Cats

Primates Guinea Hamsters Rabbits Sheep Nt
‘Numbers from Work-Based Budget System (WBBS) reports. animals animals

ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH, EXPERIMENTS, TESTING,
AND TEACHING, FY 1995-97

1,267,828

Pigs Other farm = Other Total

Chart 5

or distress alleviated with drugs,
or that involved pain or distress
without relief because use of pain-
Telieving drugs would interfere
with the results of the research or
testing.

Tables 1 through 5 of the appendix
Contain further details. Table 6
teports the total of animals used
by research since this report was
first published in 1973.

In FY 1997, there were 128
research facilities whose data are
Not included in this report because
they either did not submit a report
or submitted it too late for
tabulation. Of these facilities, 95
were Federal facilities, and 33
were non-Federal.

Itis a violation of the AWA fora
facility, whether active or inactive,
not to submit a timely report. AC
initiated the appropriate corrective
actions.

ANIMALS EXPERIENCING PAIN/DISTRESS,
PAIN/DISTRESS RELIEF, OR NO PAIN/
DISTRESS DURING EXPERIMENTS, FY 1997

Millions
15

Pain-distress/ —_Pain-distress
no Drugs alleviated

Numbers from Work-Based Budget System (WBBS) reports

No pain-distress. Total animals
in research

Chart 6