1 Actual cost of providing duplicate negatives to printer for 11 issues and projected for 13 issues or 1 year. 2 Actual billing for fiscal year 1961 for 23,258,800 copies. 3 Cost to be charged by contractor if not Government furnished at $79.78 per procedure.

The above estimated cost comparison is based on the best reconstruction possible from the contract and is based on minimum quantities. Obviously, since this contract was negotiated, other documents and information were available to the contractor. Discussion with ACIC contract officers failed to produce any additional information regarding performance under the contract. It would be well to have ACIC produce a factual estimate of the annual cost of these two chart items which are C. & G.S. produced. Using the same method of costing as reflected in the above cost comparison, the entire contract prices out to approximately $2,250,000 per year.

Our best estimate is that this contract will result in an additional cost to the Government, for services which C. & G.S. is producing and will continue to produce, of between $350,000 and $400,000 per year.

Mr. BROOKS. Do you recall that letter?
Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Yes, sir.

GORDON B. LITTLEPAGE, Jr.

Mr. BROOKS. I wonder, Mr. Tyrrell, if you would be so kind at this time as to give us a rundown on the duplication that you have found in these charts, and the objective of uniformity that you were trying to reach on the basis of both economy and efficiency, as well as safety for the flying public as well as military pilots.

I don't want to embarrass you. Just tell us what the situation is as you see it.

Mr. TYRRELL. Briefly, what you see on these boards are projects in work at the FAA today. They are specifically projects which are under consideration in the FAA Cartographic Requirements Group. I am the Chairman of that group. On that Group I have representatives from the Army, Navy, the Air Force, and various airspace user groups such as ATĂ, AOPA, and other civil representatives.

Through that Group we get the requirements, the operational requirements, and attempt to develop an end product which meets all the requirements of all users of the airspace.

Basically the operational needs divide into two types of flying. One is the instrument flying and the other is the visual flying. For both there is a need for planning charts. In other words, to plan your IFR charts and to plan your VFR flights, as we put it.

MAP STANDARDIZATION EFFORTS

On the first panel, as Mr. Littlepage referred to a moment ago, we have the flight charts for the high-, intermediate-, and low-altitude structure of the FAA. We have completed specifications agreed to by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and civil users for all three of these. Charts are being produced by the Air Force and the Coast and Geodetic Survey to these specifications. On the high altitude the Coast and Geodetic Survey is producing this particular chart. The Air Force

are converting their high-altitude charts to the same specifications, Basically, when they do produce charts to meet these specifications the charts will be identical in format, symbols, colors, folds, and so forth, so that you can pretty much say that the charts are identical. There may be differences in information because separate people are producing them. But the end product is basically a common product. That is pretty much as to the state of accomplishment. This has been accomplished within the past year. Prior to that time they did have actual different products which you can only produce by separate effort.

In the balance of the radio navigation charts, instrument charts, we do have the Alaska and the Pacific area and the Caribbean area. Charts for instrument flying in this area we have under consideration right now. The Air Force and the Coast and Geodetic Survey are producing different charts at the moment, and we are trying to develop common specifications as we did for those charts.

We have pretty much agreement in this area now, so I think we will be successful in having common specifications for these charts.

Along with the instrument flight charts and the visual charts, a pilot has to have additional information. So along with charts you have to have some flight information publications. In this area FAA is producing flight information publications. The Army is also, and the Navy. I don't believe the Coast and Geodetic Survey produces any specific publications in this field. But we are endeavoring to get to a common system here of publications, to have a basic publication, supplemented by an amended service so that it will be up to date at all times. If we can accomplish this we will be able to eliminate a lot of duplication that now exists in these publications.

In the visual flight charts we have the civilian charts here referred to as OAC and WAC. We have the 1:500,000 series and 1:250,000. We have not achieved joint specifications on these series as yet.

As was pointed out, there are some military requirements represented here that at least the Air Force says they are not satisfied with this chart. We feel that there is a good possibility, however, of designing a common product, most of which may be the same, and possibly by a special overprinting get some savings in this area.

In the planning charts we have an Air Force chart now in existence, and we are developing one for the Coast and Geodetic Survey to produce, and we hope to have those two on the same specifications; and for the VFR planning we now have two separate charts quite different in their format design, even though the scale is the same. It is 1:500,000. We hope to have common specifications for this. Once you achieve the common specifications, then I think you are in position to do something about production.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Tyrrell, for a very splendid and precise explanation of the charts. It seems obvious to me that we are making some real effort in getting these various charts to conform so that pilots will have the same charts to work from as the tower has to guide them in. I think the next problem will be to eliminate the duplication of letter-for-letter identical charts. I think it will be very difficult then to maintain a position of spending-what did you say $300,000, extra for these?

I would ask one further question, Admiral. The subcommittee is deeply concerned over the lack of coordination in survey work undertaken by various Government agencies for various specification pur

poses, which doesn't result in any long-range savings to the United States. I wonder if you could outline very briefly for the subcommittee the Coast and Geodetic Survey functions relative to the establishments of geodetic standards throughout the United States and what action could be taken to assure less wastage in survey efforts by other Government agencies.

I have in mind, for example, the millions of dollars spent on agricultural aerial photographs which I think could probably be made to your specifications and help us to chart the rural parts of this country with the same efficiency and the same standards that we have mapped a good bit of the urban area in this country.

Admiral KARO. I think, Mr. Chairman, there is a slight confusion. When you talk about the aerial survey and the topographic maps, that is no good unless it is actually based on solid geodetic control, to make everything cohesive, one part fit into another. We are charged by the basic law of providing the basic geodetic control net for the United States, its territories and possessions, so that all the mapping that is done by the other agencies will in fact fit together.

Unfortunately, we have not been able to supply the density of control in places where all these other agencies, such as the Geological Survey, the Forest Service

Mr. BROOKS. That is in the Interior?

Admiral KARO. Yes, sir; the Reclamation and Engineers need it at the time they need it. So they go in and put in a lower order control for their specific use.

Mr. BROOKS. By lower order control," you mean less rigid, less

accurate?

Admiral KARO. Less accurate and not tied in, if at all, or very loosely, into the national geodetic net, and it cannot be used for any other purpose except the primary purpose for which it was put in. Consequently, the expenditure of funds that has gone into putting in this one-time use, you might say, is wasted after that one use has been accomplished, whereas the geodetic control net we put in is of sufficient accuracy to meet the needs of all times. In other words, geodetic control when properly placed is a monument for all-time use, whether for mapping, detailed engineering surveys, or scientific operations.

Mr. BROOKS. Even roadbuilding?

Admiral KARO. Yes, sir. As you perhaps know, section 15, I believe, of the Federal Highway Act, provided for the reimbursement to the States of 90 percent of the control work that went in if it was put in according to our specifications. Many of the States contracted with us to put in this control work. We have four States in which they prefer to do it themselves, but we provided individuals on a reimbursable basis to monitor this to be sure that it was put in according to our specifications, that it was properly tied in and properly marked. Then this information was transmitted back to us and we adjusted into the national net so those stations are part of the national control net. What we would like to have done, and is proposed in our 1963 Appropriations Act, that we have funds to help these various agencies to monitor their work and to see that it is in fact capable of being integrated into the national control net.

GEODETIC STANDARDS

With the new electronic distance measuring devices, and the lightweight optical reading theodolites, it is possible for many organizations with a little training to take actual measurements of second order accuracies. But unfortunately, just measuring it isn't sufficient. You must be sure that it is tied into the national geodetic network, that it is tied in with the proper accuracies, that your stations are permanently monumented, and there are other considerations that go into it. So that we believe, if we can get together on this, and with a little more expenditure of effort, very little funds on the part of many of these other agencies, that this work that they do can be of such an accuracy and can be integrated into the national control net so that it will have lasting value rather than one time.

Mr. BROOKS. Admiral, and Mr. Secretary, it might well be that, this being your feeling, it might be that a little more effort should be expended. Maybe you ought to make a recommendation to the Secretary, to Mr. Klotz, and it may be, sir, that you could then be in touch at your level with the administrative heads of those agencies that are doing this mapping and point out to them the significant advantage of mapping it accurately so that it is done for all time and we won't map it one time for reclamation and then do the same for roads, and still have a map which isn't accurate enough to fit into the geodetic standards. Is this what happened?

Admiral KARO. Yes, sir. I can give you one classic example.

In the Olympic Peninsula where many people have been, including the geologic survey for certain types of mapping, they finally came to us and asked us to please put in one geodetic network to tie it all in together and do one final job. In the Bureau of the Budget, in their circular, I think 8016, there is a provision for a certain amount of coordination, but it is not specified that it shall be done to this required accuracy.

I think in some way or other, by Executive order or otherwise, some teeth should be put into this to require the agencies when they plan this to come together with us to be sure it is laid out, that the proper precautions are taken during the field work, and that they are properly monumented, so that we will be able to get along with this.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Klotz, I think if you present this to the other agencies with carbon copies to the proper people in the Bureau of the Budget that might get just that firming up of position that it would require to get it accomplished.

Mr. KLOTZ. We will do that. We will certainly try our very best. Mr. BROOKS. It doesn't make for any more work for you. It just means that you will get more accomplishment for the same amount of money.

Do you have any further questions?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. No, I don't have any further questions.

Mr. BROOKS. I would like then at this time to thank you, Admiral, and Mr. Littlepage, very much for being present, and Mr. Tyrrell for a very fine discussion of the situation as it now exists.

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS

We will go at this point into the road building program and attendant problems. I believe you have with you Mr. Whitton?

Mr. KLOTZ. Yes, and we also have Mr. Jim Allen, head of administration of the Bureau of Public Roads, and Mr. Erhardt, also of the Bureau of Public Roads, who may be able to answer more specific questions.

Mr. BROOKS. I will first outline the total expenditure on Park Service parkways, roads and trails, fiscal years 1955 through 1963, and place the material on those expenditures in the record at this time, which is the subject we will be dealing with, because I think it is a duplication of the existing available public roads management that we have now.

(The material referred to follows:)

NPS roads and trails construction programs for fiscal years 1955 through 1963

* Includes $1,000,000 for 12th Street Mall project, Washington, D.C.

? Does not include a supplemental appropriation of $2,660,000 for Washington, D.C., Stadium roads. Includes $888,900 for 12th Street Mall project, Washington, D.C.

Mr. BROOKS. Would you describe the present working arrangement between the Park Service and the Public Roads relative to construction of parkways and major park roads?

Mr. KLOTZ. Mr. Whitton?

Mr. WHITTON. Under the 1944 interagency agreement, entered into pursuant to the act of September 5, 1940, the Park Service agreed to utilize the Bureau of Public Roads in the construction of parkways and major park roads. Major park road construction responsibilities were retained by the Park Service.

With regard to parkways and major park road construction, the Park Service transfers to the Bureau of Public Roads 1234 percent of the total funds appropriated annually for such construction to cover the cost of engineering and overhead, and retains the remaining 87% percent for use in the following manner: 80 percent for actual construction, 4 percent for contract overruns and change orders, and 34 percent for landscaping and architectural work.

Mr. BROOKS. The subcommittee understands that part of the administrative overhead incurred by the Park Service in connection with these programs is charged against the 4 percent reserve primarily held to cover overruns and change orders. The balance of the Park Service administrative overhead attributable to these programs is charged to the overall National Park Service general administrative expense appropriation.