Technical Advisory Committee on Microphotography undertook, for its principal activity in 1957, a survey of the status of centralized microfilming activities in the 48 States. It was decided to query the States not only about their microfilming programs but also about the relation of microfilming to their archival activities and to their record management program, if any. All the responses were informative, but unfortunately some States made no replies whatever. By and large, these were the States from which the committee has had difficulty in obtaining information in previous surveys. No attempt has been made to recapitulate and incorporate the material presented in previous reports on the subject, notably the contributions of Lola M. Homsher, Mary Givens Bryan, and Dolores C. Renze. The material presented here shows a remarkable disparity both in the use of microphotography as a tool and in the place it holds in a table of organization. A few States have highly developed microfilm programs, centrally organized and operated, with a real understanding of the distinction between archival, record management, and procedural purposes. The most advanced programs use microphotography for all three purposes. Most of the States, however, appear to be using microfilm in only one or two of its possible applications. There appears to be a structural dividing line in most States that operates to prevent the centralization of microfilming. The archivist or comparable officer has authority to use microfilm for archival and historical purposes and sometimes to assist in record retention, but microfilming as a procedural tool for use with current records is usually the function of other agencies of the State government. Although some of the persons replying expressed the belief that microfilming may be overused and therefore may come into disrepute, most persons reported that they were overcoming pre-