for the exit or the entrance is level with your eye. You can't see it, because of the truck or trucks. Perhaps you are supposed to get off at exit 13, and you wind up at exit 18, 25 miles or 50 miles beyond that. Now, you can look over, however, and you can see a Gulf or Shell sign as high as Pike's Peak, but when you get down to travel directions, you can't see the exit signs because of darkness or the fact that they are obscured by a truck or another vehicle. So, why can't they raise those signs to the proper height?

When I drive into Chattanooga, Tenn., which is 338 miles from Lexington, Ky., there is a big sign up: "Knoxville" [indicating] and "Lexington" [indicating]. You don't know whether that is Lexington, N.C., Lexington, Va., or Lexington, Ky. Then when you get to Knoxville, you see another sign, "Lexington-Asheville," and you don't know where they go to.

But, you are still thinking about Lexington, Va., because that is on U.S. 11. You think the sign means the road is parallel with U.S. 11; so naturally someone who hadn't used the Interstate System before coming up there, thinks this Lexington road is parallel to the Interstate going to Lexington, Va. And he chases over there, and gets in those mountains, and he finds out he is going to Lexington, Ky., instead of Lexington, Va., and on to Washington.

So, it seems to me that as simple as a sign program could be, it is the worst on the Interstate System. If there was a country store along the way where you could ask which road do you take out of here, you would be better off than some of the sign systems on the Interstate System. It doesn't make sense to me.

Mr. WILSON. May I comment on this?

Mr. WRIGHT. Surely.

Mr. WILSON. The standards for signing on the Interstate System are fairly clear and explicit. There are certain numbers of advance notices that should be available to the motoring public. They may be on the right-hand side, in the median, or overhead, depending on the use the exit would get.

Generally, the first exit notice is approximately 2 miles in advance of the exit point. Then at the 1-mile point, there ought to be another notice, and then at the exit it is

Mr. JONES. The thing about it, if you are on the right-hand side and you have concurrent traffic patterns, or parallel, you can't see them. Mr. WILSON. This is why they should be staggered or dualed installation, either overhead across the roadway, where everybody could see them

Mr. JONES. Have you ever been around the Beltway and I-66, and been in the traffic pattern, trying to find your way into Washington, or going up 495 and winding up in Maryland? You don't see it until you get right there. You can't make a right-hand turn. You can't make a left-hand turn. So, you are just fixed in that traffic pattern; that is all you can do.

Mr. WILSON. I am not too familiar with it. I travel the roads here occasionally, but I am not famliar with that particular point. In all probability, there should be, if there isn't, advanced notice at least a mile ahead of the exit to try to channel you into the proper lane for

the move that you want to make. Then you wouldn't get caught in that position. I don't know whether these signs are there or not.

Mr. JONES. Some time when you are not doing anything, I will take you out there in a traffic jam, and let you find your way. Some night, try to get to Dulles Airport; go out on George Washington Parkway, and try to find your way around. It is distressing to people who are unfamiliar with the highways.

I think it is a matter that could relieve a great number of accidents on the highway, if they were properly identified where the motorist could make proper preparation for the proper lanes that he is going to continue on, or make his exit.

Mr. WILSON. This is a very essential point. You can't have motorists making these last minute determinations. It is conducive to accidents, and causes crashes and injuries and deaths as well. That is why it is so necessary to have advance notice, so that you don't have to take action the first time you see it, so you can contemplate action you need to take and take it at your leisure.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Wilson, in connection with these signs—
Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. WRIGHT. Back on the record.

Mr. WILSON. There are a couple more things, if I could go through them quickly. I want to go back to the lower part of chart 3 to show that in the annual work program procedures we are asking that these programs come into the regional offices from the States about March 1. Between March 1 and the beginning of the fiscal year, we will have these processed through the region and the Washington office.

At this point in time, the 1972 annual work plans are being brought in to the Washington office for a technical review. While it takes 4 months to process them and get all the agreements with the States, it does obligate all the funds at the beginning of the fiscal year. We think this is a key point. There are no delays after that. The State is free to go ahead and make whatever implementing plans they have and get the money out to their own agencies and the local governments.

In 1973 we are eliminating the annual work program review by the Washington office. This change will also eliminate the need to send these in to the Washington office, and that is going to be a key point. I think then that the States will be able to send their annual work plans even later to the regional office, probably as late as April 1, and be assured of having an approved program by the beginning of the fiscal year. We think this is a significant point.

This will relieve our regional offices from handling a multitude of paper. It will allow them to go out and work more closely with the Governor's people, with the State agencies, to try to find out these good innovations and to try to spread the word on innovations that are going on in some States to other States. We think this is a real significant point in cutting down the processing time.

Mr. WRIGHT. You are not wholly satisfied, then, with having reduced the timelag from 44 days to 25 days? You are reducing it still further?

Mr. WILSON. We want to reduce it to the point where every dollar is available at the beginning of the fiscal year; so the States and communities can go to vork immediately.

Mr. WRIGHT. I think that is significant. Additionally, I am impressed by your concern that those in the field representing your agency be as free as possible to pass on suggestions and work directly with State people, rather than spending all their time filling out forms.

We had testimony from Mr. Krause, a gentleman representing the Council of State Governments in the field of water pollution grants, a few days ago in the full committee. He had been a member previously of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and now speaking for the States, he testified that in the past 6 years, paperwork had multiplied by three times, in the applications for water pollution control.

Mr. Krause said that in many States it had become necessary to pull field personnel away from the vital business of testing a flow as it goes into the streams, and training sewer plant operators, and to put them to work reading and reviewing and filling out papers instead, so that the result in that case of growth of paperwork was directly counterproductive to the end result desired.

In your case, you seem to be moving in the other direction. You are relieving your personnel from paperwork requirements so that they can do the jobs for which they were employed.

Mr. WILSON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I would like to mention some of the highlights of the alcohol safety action program. You may remember that the Highway Safety Act required that the Secretary send to the Congress a report containing a thorough and complete study of the effect of alcohol consumption on driving. This was completed and sent to the Congress in 1968. It pointed up to two major things.

Öne is that alcohol is involved in approximately 50 percent of the highway fatalities, and the other is that problem drinkers, who are only a small portion of the general population, account for a very large portion of these alcohol-related deaths and injuries. In fact, we are finding that the problem drinker accounts for approximately two-thirds of the total deaths due to the whole alcohol problem.

What we are trying to do in the alcohol safety action program is to identify these people and make an appropriate decision for dealing with them in the court system, so that action can be taken to insure that they do not drink to excess and drive again. There are a number of areas that were developed in a broad countermeasure program, based on these assumptions:

That significant reductions in alcohol-connected traffic fatalities, injuries, and crashes, can be achieved through a well-designed and properly implemented program, as indicated by the experience in some European countries, where they have had considerable success in reducing the incidence of drinking and driving.

We feel the Federal Government here should exercise some leadership. While the States and communities have been doing a reasonably good job in this area, they have really had very limited success in dealing with the problem drinker, and drunk driving problem. These are only a couple of things that we are basing our assumptions on.

In 1969, we began to work in various sites. We selected nine sites to carry out these comprehensive programs. These sites are generally

68-176 0-71-13

a county or city, although in one case an entire State is involved. We are trying to do a combination of countermeasures involving licensing, the courts, the public information, and treatment facilities. All of these things are being brought together in a comprehensive effort in the various ASAP projects.

Mr. CAFFERY. What is your statutory authority for going into this field?

Mr. WILSON. Section 403 of the Highway Safety Act provides us with funding and authority to run demonstration projects. These are demonstration projects in the area of highway safety, and zeroing in particularly in the area of drinking, and problem drinking drivers.

Each ASAP will help law enforcement agencies increase their patrol capability and surveillance. Following convictions, there will be presentence investigations made using court and social service agency information. This will provide the judge with additional information on how to handle the problem drinkers.

Among the alternatives, we have license revocation, of course, with special enforcement to make it stick, special transportation to and from work, special reeducation and driver counseling, and referral for mental health treatment. This is the area in which the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare would be sort of a partner in carrying this thing beyond our funding responsibilities or legal authority. Mr. WRIGHT. Where would these people be referred, to the National Institute

Mr. WILSON. Mental health clinics, alcohol clinics of one sort or another that are funded by HEW.

Mr. WRIGHT. NIH is in the process of closing some of its hospitals. Do you find that this is a problem?

Mr. WILSON. We find that funding is a little hard to secure through them. However, we find they are quite cooperative in trying to set up programs within their funding limitations. They recognize it as a responsibility as well.

Mr. STANTON. Can you point out any NIH institutes that service your program now?

Mr. WILSON. Not specifically. I can provide some of those for the record. In the nine areas that we now have operational, I am sure that we have some of them-there is one in Denver

Mr. STANTON. Would you supply the list for the record?

Mr. WRIGHT. Without objection, that list will appear in the record at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)

Staffing grant awards in areas of ASAP sites

Central State Hospital-Griffin Memorial Hospital, Post Office Box 53277 Capitol Station, Oklahoma City, Okla..........

Total

Johns Hopkins Hospital, 601 North Broadway, Baltimore, Md___
Robert B. Green Hospital, 527 North Leona, San Antonia, Tex_.
Dartmouth Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Hanover, N.H
St. Luke's Hospital Medical Center, 525 North 18th Street, Phoenix,
Maricopa County, Ariz___

$196, 855

384, 857

123, 136

348, 552

479,500

1, 532, 900

APPLICATIONS TO NIAAA FOR GRANTS IN AREAS OF ASAP SITE

A. Staffing grants (have been reviewed and returned for further development): 1. Adams County, Colo.

2. Fairfax County, Va.

B. Special demonstration project grants (to be received November 1971): 1. Denver, Colo.

2. Lincoln, Nebr.

3. Indianapolis, Ind.

4. Charlotte, Mecklenburg, N.C.

5. Columbia, S.C.

6. Hillsborough, Fla.

C. For staffing grants (to be received November): 1. Seattle, Wash.

D. For training grant (to be received November): 1. Concord, N.H.

DIRECT GRANTS FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS

SERVICES FOR PROBLEM DRINKING DRIVERS

The Community Mental Health Service Act, as amended by Public Law 91-211, provides for grants to support projects concerned with treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholic persons which will demonstrate new or relatively effective or efficient methods of delivery of services to alcoholic persons. Eligible applicants are any public or private nonprofit agencies or organizations.

Special demonstration projects for services to problem drinking drivers are to focus on developing new or adapting existing services to the needs of alcoholic persons located by the Alcohol Safety Action Programs of the Department of Transportation, demonstrating to a particular community methods to initiate, extend or improve its delivery system for those persons. This program is intended for ASAP site communities which are unprepared to develop a comprehensive service program. The proposed program should contribute in substantial ways to the subsequent development of comprehensive community alcoholism services.

Insofar as possible, the applicant must arrange for the community to provide and pay for direct treatment services to patients. This grant program will emphasize support for personnel whose work will be to provide coordination between community agencies, to provide liaison with the court and enforcement system, to counsel the client, and to provide for his continuing case responsibility and continuity of care.

APPLICATION FORMS AND SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION

An agency or organization wishing to apply for a direct grant for this purpose will use Form PHS-398 (Grant Application). Copies may be secured from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute of Mental Health.

GRANTEE RESPONSIBILITIES

The primary focus of the grant will be providing services to the problem drinking driver and supporting the Alcohol Safety Action Program.

It is expected that this Special Demonstration Project would run for no more than three years, subject to annual review, and that substantial effort would be devoted in the third year to development of plans for comprehensive community alcoholism services. (A grantee may choose, however, to apply at any time before the termination of the grant for a Comprehensive Community Services Staffing Grant). The grant activity and the information that is developed should prove very helpful to the subsequent development of comprehensive community alcoholism services. An interim progress report must be submitted as an integral part of each continuation application.

Funding for years after the first year will not be automatic but will be determined annually by NIAAA assessment of the project. Applications for continued support by NIAAA will be made available within six months after the initial award; it is the responsibility of the grantee to request the continuation application if not received five months before the termination of the active period.