9 C.F.R. § 3.125

Facilities, general

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Structural strength. The facility must be constructed of such material and of such strength as appropriate for the animals involved. The indoor and outdoor housing facilities shall be structurally sound and shall be maintained in good repair to protect the animals from injury and to contain the animals.

(b) Water and power. Reliable and adequate electric power, if required to comply with other provisions of this subpart, and adequate potable water shall be available on the premises.

(c) Storage. Supplies of food and bedding shall be stored in facilities which adequately protect such supplies against deterioration, molding, or contamination by vermin. Refrigeration shall be provided for supplies of perishable food.

(d) Waste disposal. Provision shall be made for the removal and disposal of animal and food wastes, bedding, dead animals, trash and debris. Disposal facilities shall be so provided and operated as to minimize vermin infestation, odors, and disease hazards. The disposal facilities and any disposal of animal and food wastes, bedding, dead animals, trash, and debris shall comply with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to pollution control or the protection of the environment.

(e) Washroom and sinks. Facilities, such as washrooms, basins, showers, or sinks, shall be provided to maintain cleanliness among animal caretakers.

[36 FR 24925, Dec. 24, 1971. Redesignated at 44 FR 36874, June 22, 1979, and amended at 44 FR 63492, Nov. 2, 1979]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1992–2020 · leading case: Patrick D. Hoctor v. United States Dep't of Agric., 82 F.3d 165 (7th Cir. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patrick D. Hoctor v. United States Dep't of Agric., 82 F.3d 165 (7th Cir. 1996). · cites it 4× “” 9 C.F.R. § 3.125 (a). Enter the petitioner, Patrick Hoctor, who in 1982 began dealing in exotic animals on his farm outside of Terre Haute.”

Graham v. San Antonio Zoological Soc'y, 261 F. Supp. 3d 711 (W.D. Tex. 2017). · cites it 2× “59-2 at 43 (Ensley Report); see also 9 C.F.R. § 3.125 (“The facility must be constructed of such material and of such strength as appropriate for the animals involved.”

Kuehl v. Sellner, 161 F. Supp. 3d 678 (N.D. Iowa 2016). “” 9 C.F.R. § 3.125 (d). On December 8, 2011, Neis inspected the Zoo and found “an excessive accumulation of animal waste” in the enclosure housing two of the tigers (Sasha and Keiharan) and the enclosure housing two lions.”

Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 351 F. Supp. 3d 16 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 9 C.F.R. §§ 3.125 - 3.142. It has also promulgated regulations specific to dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, and other mammals.”

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Madigan, 781 F. Supp. 797 (D.D.C. 1992). · cites it 3× “9 C.F.R. § 3.125 et seq. These regulations would be applicable to the care of birds, rats, and mice but for the regulation excluding them from the definition of animal.”

Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. United States Dep't of Agric. (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 9 C.F.R. §§ 3.125 – 3.142. It has also promulgated regulations specific to dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, and other mammals.”

Douglas Terranova v. AGRI (5th Cir. 2020). “Those violations included the following: (1) March 10, 2011 violations of 9 C.F.R. §§ 3.125 (a) and 3.128 by failing to maintain the tiger enclosures properly; (2) September 25, 2013 violations of 9 C.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.