9992 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 49 / W ednesday, March 13, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

regulations governing the interstate 

movement of cattle because of 

brucellosis by changing the 

classification of the State of Minnesota 

horn Class A to Class Free. This rule is 

necessary because it has been 

determined that this State meets the 

standards for Class Free status. The rule 

relieves restrictions on the interstate 

movement of cattle from the State of 

Minnesota.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 13,1985.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Thomas~J. Holt, Cattle Diseases 

Staff, VS, APHIS, USD A, Room 817, 

Fédéral Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, 

Hyatt8ville, MD 20782, 301-436-8711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A document published in the Federal 

Register on November 29,1984 (49 FR . 

46871-46872), amended the brucellosis 

regulations in 9 CFR Part 78 by changing 

the classification of the State of 

Minnesota from Class A to Class Free. 

The amendment, which was made 

effective November 29,1984, relieves 

certain restrictions on the interstate 

movement of cattle from Minnesota.

Comments were solicited for 60 days 

after publication of the amendment. No 

comments were received. The factual 

situation which was set forth in the 

document of November 29,1984, still 

provides a basis for the amendment

Executive Order 12291 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with Executive Order 12291 

and has been determined to be not a 

major rule. Based on information 

compiled by the Department, it has been 

determined that this rule will not have a 

significant effect on the economy: will 

not cause a major increase in costs or 

prices for consumers, individual 

industries, Federal, State, or local 

government agencies, or geographic 

regions; and will not cause adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

on the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export 

markets.

For this rulemaking action, the Office 

of Management and Budget has waived 

its review process required by Executive 

Order 12291.

Changing the status of the State of 

Minnesota reduces testing requirements 

on the interstate movement of certain 

cattle. Cattle moved interstate are 

moved for slaughter, for use as breeding 

stock, or for feeding. Testing 

requirements for cattle moved interstate

for immediate slaughter, or to 

quarantined feedlots are not affected by 

the changes in status. Also, cattle from 

Certified Brucellosis-Free Herds moving 

interstate are not affected by these 

changes in status. It has been 

determined that the changes in 

brucellosis status made by this rule will 

not affect marketing patterns and will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on those persons affected by this 

document

Therefore, the Administrator of the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 78

Animal diseases, Brucellosis, Cattle 

Hogs, Quarantine, Transportation.

PART 78—[AMENDED]

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 9 CFR Part 78 which was 

published at 49 FR 46871-46872 on 

November 29,1984, is adopted as a final 

rule without change.

Authority: Secs. 4,5,6, 23 Stat. 32, as 

amended; secs. 1 and 2,32 Stat. 791-792, as 

amended; sec. 3,33 Stat. 1265, as amended; 

Sec. 2,65 Stat. 693; and secs. 3 and 11,76 Stat. 

130,132; 21 U.S.C. 111-113,114a-l, 115,120, 

121,125,134b, 134f 7 CFR 2.17,2.51, and 

371.2(d).

Done at Washington, D.C., this 7th day of 

March 1985.

K.R. Hook,

Acting Deputy Administrator, Veterinary

Services.

(FR Doc. 85-5944 Filed 3-12-85; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-M

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Parts 100 and 101

Payments Received for Testing the

Waters Activities; Transmittal to

Congress

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; transmittal to 

Congress.

s u m m a r y : The Commission’s 

regulations governing “testing the 

waters” activities at 11 CFR 100.7(b)(1), 

100.8(b)(1) and 101.3 have been revised 

and transmitted to Congress pursuant to 

2 U.S.C. 438(d). These regulations permit 

an individual to receive and expend 

funds to test the feasibility of a 

campaign for Federal office without 

becoming a candidate under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971, as

amended, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq. (“the 

Act”). The revised rules amend 

§§ 100.7(b)(1) and 100.8(b)(1) to clarify 

that the “testing the waters” exemptions 

do not apply to campaign activities 

undertaken once an individual decides 

to become a candidate. The regulations 

also revise §§ 100.7(b)(1), 100.8(b)(1), 

and 101.3 to prohibit the use of frmds in 

excess of the contribution limits or from 

prohibited sources under the Act for 

“testing the waters” activities. Finally, 

the new rules make minor clarifying 

amendments to §§ 100.7(b)(1) and 

100.8(b)(1) in two areas. Further 

information on the revisions is provided 

in the supplementary information which 

follows.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Further action, 

including the announcement of an 

effective date, will be taken after these 

regulations have been before Congress 

for 30 legislative days pursuant to 2 

U.S.C. 438(d).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Susan E. Propper, Assistant General 

Counsel, 1325 K Street, NW, 

Washington, D.C. 20463, (202) 523-4143 

o r (800) 424-9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission is publishing today the final 

text of revised rules to govern “testing 

the waters” activities at 11 CFR 

100.7(b)(1), 100.8(b)(1), and 101.3. On July 

31,1984, tiie Commission issued a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking seeking 

comments on proposed revisions to 

these regulations. 49 FR 30509. One 

comment was received in response to 

the Notice from the National Republican 

Congressional Committee (“NRCC”).

The Commission has also considered 

comments filed by the National 

Education Association (“NEA") and 

Wayne Lela, an independent 

Presidential candidate, on the issues 

raised in its Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (49 FR 1995) 

issued on February 17,1984.

2 U.S.C. 438(d) requires that any rule 

or regulation prescribed by the 

Commission to carry out the provisions 

of Title 2, United States Code, be 

transmitted to the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives and the President of 

the Senate prior to final promulgation. 

These regulations were transmitted to 

Congress on March 8,1985.

Explanation and Justification

Under 2 U.S.C. 431(2), an individual is 

deemed to be a “candidate" for 

purposes of the Act if he or she receives 

contributions or makes expenditures in 

excess of $5,000 or gives consent to 

another person to receive contributions 

or make expenditures cm his or her
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 49 / W ednesday, M arch 13, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 9993

behalf aggregating in excess of $5,000. 

The Act thus establishes automatic 

dollar thresholds for attaining candidate 

status which trigger its registration and 

reporting requirements.

Through its regulations, the 

Commission has established limited 

exceptions to these automatic 

thresholds which permit an individual to 

test the feasibility of a campaign for 

Federal office without becoming a 

candidate under the Act. Commonly 

referred to as the “testing the waters” 

exceptions, 11 CFR 100.7(b)(1) and 

100.8(b)(1) exclude funds received and 

payments made to determine whether 

an individual should become a 

candidate from the definitions of 

“contribution” and “expenditure” 

respectively. An individual who 

undertakes “testing the waters” 

activities must nevertheless keep 

records of all funds received and 

payments made in connection with 

these activities. The Commission’s 

regulations provide that if the person 

subsequently becomes a candidate, 

those receipts and disbursements 

become contributions and expenditures 

under the Act. Thus, under 

§§ 100.7(b)(1), 100.8(b)(1), and 101.3, 

such funds received and payments made 

must be reported in the first report filed 

by the candidate’s principal campaign 

committee.

The revised rules amend 

§§ 100.7(b)(1), 100.8(b)(1), and 101.3 in 

three respects. First, § § 100.7ib)(l) and 

100.8(b)(1) have been amended to 

further clarify that the “testing the 

waters” exemptions do not apply to 

campaign activities undertaken once an 

individual has decided to become a 

candidate. A second set of revisions to 

§1100.7(b)(1), 100.8(b)(1), and 101.3 

prohibit the use of funds in excess of the 

contribution limits or from prohibited 

sources for “testing the waters” 

activities. Finally, minor clarifying 

amendments have .been made in 

§§ 100.7(b)(1) and 100.8(b)(1).

A. Scope o f Permissible Activities

Under the "Testing the W aters" 

Exemptions

The current “testing the waters” 

regulations are explicitly limited 

“solely” to activities designed to 

evaluate a potential candidacy.

Examples of permissible activities 

included in the present regulations are 

expenses for conducting a poll, 

telephone calls, and travel, to determine 

whether an individual should become a 

candidate. Currently, § § 100.7(b)(1) and 

100.8(b)(1) expressly prohibit receipts 

and disbursements for general public 

political advertising, such as television 

or newspaper advertisements, or efforts

to raise funds for use after the individual 

becomes a candidate. The Commission 

has distinguished such activities as 

amounting to the establishment of a 

campaign organization. See Advisory 

Opinions (“AO”) 1979-26,1981-32,1982- 

3, and 1982-19.

Despite its attempts to limit the scope 

of the “testing the waters” exceptions, 

the Commission has concluded that the 

present rules could be interpreted to 

include activities beyond those they 

were originally intended to encompass. 

The Commission has, therefore, 

amended the rules to ensure that the 

"testing the waters” exemptions will not 

be extended beyond their original 

purpose. Specifically, these provisions 

are intended to be limited exemptions 

from the reporting requirements of the 

Act to permit individuals to conduct 

certain activities while deciding whether 

to become a candidate for Federal 

office, without making their activities 

immediately public.

Accordingly, the Commission has 

amended §§ 100.7(b)(1) and 100.8(b)(1) 

to set forth an expanded list of examples 

of activities that, dependent upon the 

circumstances, may be considered to 

indicate that an individual has decided 

to become a candidate and is no longer 

“testing the waters.” The Commission 

believes the inclusion of examples of 

activities in the text of the regulations 

will provide greater assistance in 

determining when someone is 

undertaking permissible “testing the 

waters” activities than possibly vague 

general factors. First, the Commission 

has amended these sections to include 

as examples the activities that are 

specifically prohibited under the current 

“testing the waters” provisions. The 

revised rules retain use of public 

political advertising to publicize the 

individual’s campaign as an example of 

an activity not permissible as “testing 

the waters" in § § 100.7(b)(l)(ii)(A) and 

100.8(b) (1)(ii)(A). Moreover, based on 

similar provisions in the current 

regulations, § § 100.7(b)(l)(ii)(B) and 

100.8(b)(l)(ii)(B) include as an example 

raising funds in excess of what could 

reasonably be expected to be used for 

exploratory activities or undertaking 

activities designed to amass campaign 

funds that would be spent after the 

individual becomes a candidate. These 

revisions are in accord with the 

Commission’s determination in AOs 

1979-26 and 1981-32 that to stay within 

the exemption, funds must be raised 

only for the purpose of financing the 

exempt activity.

Secondly, the revised rules set forth 

three additional examples of other 

activities indicating that an individual is

no longer “testing the waters” that were 

not previously enumerated in the 

regulations. The Commission has 

concluded, on the basis of its experience 

and the comments received on the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, that 

these examples further illustrate the line 

drawn between “testing the waters” 

activities and campaigning after an 

individual has decided to become a 

candidate.

Thus, paragraph (b)(l)(ii)(C) in 

§ § 100.7 and 100.8 concerns whether the 

individual makes or authorizes written 

or oral statements that refer to him or 

her as a candidate for a particular office. 

See AO 1981-32. Furthermore, if an 

individual conducts activities in close 

proximity to the election or over a 

protracted period of time, the 

Commission may consider such activity 

an indication that the individual has 

decided to become a candidate under 

§§100.7(b)(l)(ii)(D) and 

100.8(b)(l)(ii)(D). Sections 

100.7(b)(l)(ii)(E) and 100.8(b)(1)(ii)(E) 

contain as a final example taking action 

to qualify for the ballot under State law. 

This example utilizes NRCC’s suggestion 

that the State filing deadline is an 

appropriate time for determining 

whether an individual has become a 

candidate, but does not make it the 

exclusive factor.

The Commission also considered 

including an illustrative list of factors 

that could be used in determining 

whether particular activities are 

permissible under the “testing the 

waters” exemptions. A proposed list of 

determinative factors was contained in 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 

recognition of the fact that activities, 

such as polling and travel, may be 

legitimate "testing the waters” activities 

or campaigning depending upon the 

surrounding circumstances. Upon further 

consideration, however, the Commission 

decided not to include these factors in 

the final rules. The Commission 

concluded that the inclusion of general, 

possibly vague factors wpuld not aid in 

clarifying the narrow scope of the 

"testing the waters” provisions. This is 

particularly so since the determination 

of whether an individual has crossed the 

line from “testing the waters” to 

campaigning must be made on a caseby-case basis.

B. Applicability of Contribution

Limitations and Prohibitions to “Testing

the W aters"Activities

The Commission has also revised the 

rules to prohibit the use of funds in 

excess of the contribution limits or from 

sources prohibited under the Act to be 

used for "testing the waters” activities.
9994 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 49 / W ednesday, March 13, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

Sections 100.7(b)(1), 100.8(b)(1), and

101.3 currently provide that funds 

received or expended for “testing the 

waters” become reportable 

contributions and expenditures if the 

individual becomes a candidate. Section

101.3 also currently provides that any 

excessive or prohibited contributions 

received during the “testing the waters” 

period must be refunded within 10 days 

after the individual becomes a 

candidate.

The Commission has reached the 

conclusion that the present regulations 

permit individuals to accept funds in 

excess of the contribution limits of 2 

U.S.C. 441a(a) and funds from prohibited 

sources, such as corporations and labor 

organizations, for “testing the waters” 

activities. See AOs 1982-19 and 1983-9. 

In AO 1982-19, the Commission 

concluded that the prohibitions, 

limitations, and reporting requirements 

of the Act become applicable only when 

an individual becomes a candidate. 

However, pursuant to § 101.3, the 

Commission required that the individual 

repay or refund any excessive or 

prohibited contributions received during 

the “testing the waters” period within 10 

days after becoming a candidate. 

Similarly, the Commission determined in 

AO 1983-9 that an individual could 

make loans from his personal hinds to 

an exploratory committee in excess of 

the expenditure limitations of the 

Presidential Primary Matching Payment 

Account Act, 26 U.S.C. 9031 et seq, and 

still be eligible to receive primary 

matching funds. The Commission 

required pursuant to § 101.3 that funds 

in excess of the $50,000 expenditure 

limitation imposed by 26 U.S.C.

§ 9035(b) be repaid to him within 10 

days after he declared his candidacy.

The Commission has reconsidered 

this issue and determined that 

permitting prohibited funds to be used 

for “testing the waters” activities 

extended the exemptions beyond the 

narrow range of activities they were 

originally intended to encompass. Thus, 

§§ 100.7(b)(1), 100.8(b)(1), and 101.3, as 

amended, now require that all funds 

received for “testing the waters” must 

be subject to the Act’s limitations and 

prohibitions. The revised rules thus 

overrule the Commission’s decisions on 

this question in AOs 1982-19 and 1983-

9. The Commission views the amended 

regulations as reducing the potential for 

circumvention of the prohibitions and 

limitations of the Act. These revisions 

also ensure consistent application of the 

Act’s contribution limitations and 

prohibitions.

Two commentors objected to the 

proposed rules to the extent they

prohibited the use of excessive 

contributions and funds from prohibited 

sources for “testing the waters” 

activities. The Commission has 

considered these comments, but decided 

not to follow them in adopting the final 

rules. The Commission believes that the 

revised rules will remedy the situation 

that results under the present 

regulations when funds that are 

permissible when donated subsequently 

become illegal and must be refunded 

when the individual becomes a 

candidate. Moreover, the revised rules 

are intended to clear up any 

misconceptions that the “testing the 

waters” provisions may be used to raise 

“seed money” for prospective 

candidates. The current regulations are 

clear in prohibiting the use of the 

“testing the waters” exemptions to raise 

money for a future campaign. The 

Commission has reinforced its 

prohibition of this practice by reiterating 

the policy of the present regulations in 

its list of examples.

C. Miscellaneous Amendments

Finally, two minor amendments have 

been made to §§ 100.7(b)(1) and 

100.8(b)(1). The regulations revise these 

sections to include a cross-reference to 

the recordkeeping the reporting 

requirements of § 101.3. In addition, the 

revisions clarify that each of these 

sections provides an exemption solely to 

the definition of either “contribution” or 

“expenditure” by limiting the section to 

either “funds received” or “payments 

made.”

List o f Subjects 

11 CFR Part 100

Elections.

11 CFR Part 101

Political candidates, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, elections.

PART 100—SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS

(2 U.S.C. 431)

1.11 CFR Part 100 is amended by 

revising § § 100.7(b)(1) and 100.8(b)(1) to 

read as follows:

§ 100.7 Contribution (2 U.S.C. 431(8)).

*****

(b) * * *

(1) (i) Funds received solely for the 

purpose of determining whether an 

individual should become a candidate 

are not contributions. Examples of 

activities permissible under this 

exemption if they are conducted to 

determine whether an individual should 

become a candidate include, but are not 

limited to, conducting a poll, telephone 

calls, and travel. Only funds permissible

under the Act may be used for such 

activities. The individual shall keep 

records of all such funds received. See 

11 CFR 101.3. If the individual 

subsequently becomes a candidate, the 

funds received are contributions subject 

to the reporting requirements of the Act. 

Such contributions must be reported 

with the first report filed by the 

principal campaign committee of the 

candidate, regardless of the date the 

funds were received.

(ii) This exemption does not apply to 

funds received for activities indicating 

that an individual has decided to 

become a candidate for a particular 

office or for activities relevant to 

conducting a campaign. Examples of 

activities that indicate that an individual 

has decided to become a candidate 

include, but are not limited to:

(A) The individual uses general public 

political advertising to publicize his or 

her intention to campaign for Federal 

office.

(B) The individual raises funds in 

excess of what could reasonably be 

expected to be used for exploratory 

activities or undertakes activities 

designed to amass campaign funds that 

would be spent after he or she becomes 

a candidate.

(C) The individual makes or 

authorizes written or oral statements 

that refer to him or her as a candidate 

for a particular office.

(D) The individual conducts activities 

in close proximity to the election or over 

a protracted period of time.

(E) The individual has taken action to 

qualify for the ballot under State law. 

*****

§ 100.8 Expenditure (2 U.S.C. 431(9).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) (i) Payments made solely for the 

purpose of determining whether an 

individual should become a candidate 

are not expenditures. Examples of 

activities permissible under this 

exemption if they are conducted to 

determine whether an indivdual should 

become a candidate include, but are not 

limited to, conducting a poll, telephone 

calls, and travel. Only funds permissible 

under the Act may be used for such 

activities. The individual shall keep 

records of all such payments. See 11 

CFR 101.3. If the individual subsequently 

becomes a candidate, the payments 

made are subject to the reporting 

requirements of the Act. Such 

expenditures must be reported with the 

first report filed by the principal 

campaign committee nf the candidate, 

regardless of the date the payments 

were made.
Fjederal Register / Vol. 50, No. 49 / W ednesday, March 13, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 9995

(ii) This exemption does not apply to 

payments made for activities indicating 

that an individual has decided to 

become a candidate for a particular 

office or for activities relevant to 

conducting a campaign. Examples of 

activities that indicate that an individual 

has decided to become a candidate 

include, but are not limited to:

(A) The individual uses general public 

political advertising to publicize his or 

her intention to campaign for Federal 

office.

(B) The individual raises funds in 

excess of what could reasonably be 

expected to be used for exploratory 

activities or undertakes activities 

designed to amass campaign funds that 

would be spent after he or she becomes 

a candidate.

(Cj The individual makes or 

authorizes written or oral statements 

that refer to him or her as a candidate 

for a.particular office.

(D) The individual conducts activities 

in close proximity to the election or over 

a protracted period of time.

(E) The individual has taken action to 

quality for the ballot under State law.

* * * * *

PART 101— CANDIDATE STATUS AND

DESIGNATIONS (2 U.S.C. 432(e))

2.11 CFR Part 101 is amended by 

revising § 101.3 to read as follows:

§ 101.3 Funds received or expended prior

to becoming a candidate (2 U.S.C.

432(e)(2)).

When an individual becomes a 

candidate, all funds received or 

payments made in connection with 

activities conducted under 11 CFR 

100.7(b)(1) and 11 CFR 100.8(b)(1) or his 

or her campaign prior to becoming a 

candidate shall be considered 

contributions or expenditures under the 

Act and shall be reported in accordance 

with 11 CFR 104.3 in the first report filed 

by such candidate’s principal campaign 

committee. The individual shall keep 

records of the name of each contributor, 

the date of receipt and amount of all 

contributions received (see 11 CFR 

102.9(a)), and all expenditures made (see 

11 CFR 102.9(b)) in connection with 

activities conducted under 11 CFR ' 

100.7(b)(1) and 11 CFR 100.8(b)(1) or the 

individual’s campaign prior to becoming 

a candidate.

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(8), 431(9), 432(e)(2), 

and 437d(8).

Dated: March 8,1985.

John Warren McGarry,

Chairman, Federal Election Commission.

[FR Doc. 85-6020 Filed 3-12-85; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

13 CFR Part 121

Small Business Size Standards;

Engineering Services

a g e n c y : Small Business Administration. 

a c t io n : Result of size standard study; 

decision not the change rule.

s u m m a r y : SBA has reviewed, in depth, 

the size standard for engineering 

services (except for military and 

aerospace equipment and weapons) and 

decided to retain the current size 

standard of $7.5 million in average 

annual receipts which was established 

in 1975.

In its Final Rule of February 9,1984 

(49 FR 5023), SBA was specifically 

committed to make this study as well as 

review several other industries where 

there was controversy over the 

appropriate size standard. The study of 

the engineering services size standard 

included an examination of the industry 

structure, the nature and distribution of 

Federal contracts among engineering 

firms, the impact of changes to 

alternative size standards and the 

comments received from firms, 

associations, and Federal agencies. SBA 

found no persuasive reason to make any 

change.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew A. Canellas, Director, Size 

Standards Staff, Small Business 

Administration, 1441 L Street NW.,

Room 500, Washington, D.C, 20416, (202) 

653-6373.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 9,1984, the Small 

Business Administration published a 

Final Rule in the Federal Register (49 FR 

5023) in which its size standards were 

comprehensively revised. Almost all 

dollar size standards were given an 81 

percent increase to adjust for inflation 

since they were last established in 1975. 

One industry in which its size standard 

was maintained, however, was 

engineering services, with the exception 

that an increase was implemented for

engineering specifically for military and 

aerospace equipment and weapons. The 

need for further study of the engineering 

services (except for military and 

aerospace equipment and weapons) size 

standard became obvious when almost 

all comments were opposed to SBA’s 

May 6,1983, proposal to lower the size 

standard to $3.5 million. Those 

commenting took widely diverse 

positions, a majority wanting the size 

standard much lower than the proposed 

$3.5 million while almost all others 

wished to retain the standard at $7.5 

million.

Two advance notices and one notice 

of proposal to revise SBA size standards 

were published in the Federal Register, 

45 FR 15442, March 10,1980; 47 FR 18992, 

May 3,1982, and 48 FR 20560, May 6, 

1983, and in response to each of these 

proposals more comments were 

received concerning the size standard 

for engineering services than for any 

other industry, indicating the interest in 

this size standard.

Industry Structure

Engineering services consists of a 

number of types of engineering. 

Approximately 84 percent of the dollar 

receipts of engineering service firms is 

for engineering design services used in 

construction. The engineering service 

industry is not highly sensitive to 

Federal procurements; less than 6 

percent of its receipts come from 

Federal contracts.

There are slightly over 15,000 

engineering service firms with at least 

one employee of which 250 firms exceed 

SBA’s current size standard of $7.5 

million. These 250 large engineering 

firms account for approximately 50 

percent of the industry’s receipts.

There is a clearly established trend 

for the large firms in this industry to 

grow in size, mostly through acquisitions 

and mergers with other large or 

intermediate size engineering firms. 

There was a recent increase in the 

number of very small firms, mostly with 

one or two engineers. Data showing 

these trends are presented in Table 1 

that follows:

Table 1.—Consulting Engineer’s Census of Firms Comparative Data—1978-1980-1982

(Encompasses firms primarily in the civil engineering field]

Employment Size of Firm

1-25 26-100 Over

100 Total

Number of firms.................................................... 1978 8,428 1,333 487 10,248

1980 8,450 1,813 628 10,891

1982 11.022 1,730 603 13,355

Percent increase..............................„ ........... ................ 1978-1980 +0.2 +36.0 +29.0 +6.3

1980-1982 +30.4 -4 .6 -4 .0 +22.6

Engineers per firm ........................................................ 1980 2.4 9.5 61.6 7.0

1982 2.2 9.3 92.9 7.2