the proper answer, or at the initiative of the complainant, because he believes the Department is in error.

More generalized complaints, not susceptible to tidy procedural handling of the above sort, are handled on a case by case basis, commencing with an effort by the Office of Territories to obtain all of the pertinent facts. This often requires several exchanges of correspondence with our colleagues in the field. Following the assembling of all pertinent facts, we would usually undertake to make a judgment as to who is right. If the conclusion supports it, we then (with the concurrence and/or the help of our superíors in the office of the Secretary, if the case warrants), undertake to advise the pertinent officer or employee of the United States to proceed differently.

We have no formal sanctions of the sort apparently anticipated by the questionnaire, to "deter future activities" of the sort complained of. But we would not hesitate to invoke our own, probably effective stop order, so that the matter is not repeated pending a determination as to whether an error has in fact been made.

E. Judging from the volumes of correspondence which we receive, those members of the public who are affected by our activities are well aware of that fact. We withhold nothing from public view, unless it be classified security information.

F. We publish official pamphlets on all significant areas which we administer, and we distribute them gratuitously to anyone interested. With further funds, we could produce bigger pamphlets but I think there is no real need for this.

A. I believe that the decision-making process in the Office of Territories is as expeditious as is desirable, all things considered.

B. Our operations in Washington are limited as to scope, and we have no significant mechanized assistance, nor in my judgment do we need it at this time. We have, with high hopes and mixed results, undertaken to apply the program-planning-budgeting process. Notwithstanding very able and cooperative people who have devoted enormous energy to this effort, the results have not been wholly rewarding. My own view as to why is that the PPBS system may not be very effective when applied to areas of human growth-more specifically, to political and economic development in areas that are very dynamic.

I have no doubt that, to the extent that they would be useful to us, computers, systems analysis, testing facilities, and the like could become available to the Office of Territories, through Departmental sources. In general we have not felt their lack.

C. Our procedure for coordinating with government agencies with interrelated responsibilities (and I would not concede that any other agency has an overlapping or conflicting responsibility at this time) is to talk, talk, talk to the representatives of such other agencies, to compare notes as often as possible, and to share copies of all pertinent documents. We could use a hundred-fold increase in these techniques, but in general I think we have no complaint in this area.

D. Because the Office of Territories is essentially a staff agency, it is difficult to measure its achievements, all of which are shared with many others elsewhere in the Executive Branch, in the Congress, in the territories themselves. We surely have no formal methods for measuring Office of Territories accomplishments. (The territorial governments do, but my answers relate to the Office of Territories per se.) To the extent that significant items on our legislative program are in fact enacted into law, as they have been with marked frequency in recent years, we have some indications of the success with which we are fulfilling our role. To the extent that public criticism exists or doesn't, we have another indication. Correspondence in our files, discussions in the Congressional Record, articles in the public press, all indicate that we have not done as much as we ought to have done in portions of the Pacific. But we know this anyway.

PPBS would not help us very much, as indicated in B. above.

We have occasional gaps in our statutory authority, and our means for filling them is the time-honored process by which legislation is developed in the Executive Branch, cleared within it, transmitted to the Congress, supported during the hearing process, and eventually enacted into law..

E. I believe that the Director of the Office of Territories has had, in my experience, about the right amount of decision-making authority. I doubt we need a noticeably larger staff, although no bureaucrat would say that further manpower would not be welcome.

I do not think rotation, in this age of specialization and expertise, would be helpful. Long exposure to particular problems is quite necessary to effective work, and rotation would defeat this. We have no "regulated industries", and hence no problem of personnel associated with such industries.

III. THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

I probably spent a total of 30 minutes on Parts I and II. The questions seem useful and relevant and I perceive no areas that should be touched and were not. I would not want, in any event, to respond anonymously.

M. Oil Import Administration.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OIL IMPORT ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., May 26, 1969. DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: This is in response to your letter of February 25 by which you forwarded the enclosed questionnaire. We regret our delay in replying..

The following are responses to the questions as listed in the questionnaire:

I-A. (1) Private citizens and citizens groups frequently contribute to the Oil Import Administration's decision making process by the means of public hearings, comments to publications in the Federal Register and correspondence resulting from newspaper stories.

(2) The Oil Import Agency does encourage such inputs by frequently resorting to the Federal Register and public hearings.

(3) We are not aware of any mechanics which would increase these inputs.

B. (1) The Oil Import Administration does not have any citizen or advisory group.

(2) Those directly affected by the regulations and others who request it are placed upon a mailing list to receive all information releases issued by the agency.

C. There are no procedures which distinguish the views and needs of the poor as a category.

D. (1) Any complaint is investigated under the applicable regulations and any action authorized by the regulations is taken.

(2) Any complaint of an infraction of the regulations is referred to an industrial specialist for investigation. The undustrial specialist will make the necessary investigation, including an on-the-site inspection if necessary, and recommend to the Administrator an action to be taken under the regulations. Assuming it appears proper, a procedure can be brought under Oil Import Regulation 2 to suspend or revoke any allocation or license which might be issued improperly.

(3) Under the regulations the complaining party, if other than the Oil Import Administration, has no role to play.

(4) The revocation or suspension of the license is an adequate economic deterrent.

(5) It has not been necessary to apply these sanctions excet in a very limited number of cases.

E. (1) Those persons who must operate under the regulations are completely aware of the various facets of the program.

(2) The Oil Import Administration's functions and processes are promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations are also issued as information releases and given freely to any one who asks.

(3) We are not aware of any means by which the outward flow of information can be improved.

(4) Virtually no record of the Oil Import Administration is withheld from public view except intra-office memoranda and personnel records.

F. (1) Dissemination by publication and the mail are the only means to obtain Oil Import Administration information outside Washington, D.C., because there is only the Washington office.

(2) In connection with a proposed compliance and surveillance program it is hoped to establish field offices. These offices could serve a collateral purpose in disseminating information.

II.-A. (1) Yes.

(2) We do not foresee any possible faster method of decision making under the current state of the regulations governing the agency. B. (1) There are no resources of the type listed available in the Oil Import Administration.

(2) The use of this type resource from other agencies or outside sources has not appeared economic.

(3) Oil Import Administration relies upon information submitted by members of the regulated industry, but it is not a result of a lack

of the resources listed. The particular industry member is the sole source of information and adequate funding is not available for compliance inspections.

C. The Oil Import Administration uses inter-agency committees and frequent contacts between equivalent employees within the overlapping, interrelated or conflicting agencies.

D. It is our understanding that the response to this question will be included with the response by the Interior Department.

E.(1) The agency staff has about the right amount of impact upon the decision making processes.

(2) The level of impact could only be changed by changing the staffing inasmuch as the entire staff of fourteen (14) is now located in Washington, D.C.

(3) Not applicable to this small agency.

(4) This is not applicable to this small agency.

(5) We believe that periodic rotation would improve agency staff work by bringing new ideas and approaches into the agency.

(6) The Oil Import Administration needs additional technical expertise.

(7) This capability can only be obtained by adding technically trained personnel.

(8) All the staff members of the Oil Import Administration are career civil servants having status. None have been employed by industry within the past ten (10) years. One ex-oil import administrator is now employed by a member of the regulated industry. The balance of this question is not applicable.

III. (1) About two (2) hours.

(2) The questions raised useful issues, however, a small agency such as this does not have too much flexibility in its practices and procedures. Some of the questions probably are relevant to most agencies, but are not applicable to the Oil Import Administration. (3) Whether the questionnaire were to be answered anonymously or not makes no difference.

Sincerely yours,

J. J. SIMMONS III, Acting Administrator.

Responses of the Department of Justice

A. Antitrust Division

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1969.

DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: We have prepared the following answers: to the questionnaire you sent out under cover of your letter of February 24, 1969. These answers relate only to the Antitrust Division.

I. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

A. The Antitrust Division is a law enforcement agency rather than an administrative body; therefore it does not-and should not-issuepublic notices inviting outside comment on pending enforcement decisions. On the other hand, officials of the Division are available to

receive the views of persons interested in general questions relating to enforcement, as well as persons making particular complaints against possible law violators. Citizen complaints are an important source of information to the Department in carrying out its duties. We currently receive a considerable number of complaints owing to the fact that antitrust enforcement is a well-publicized aspect of the Department's activities. We doubt that the quantity of such complaints would be substantially increased by additional publicity or other affirmative measures.

B. No.

C. Not applicable. Poor persons have, so far as the antitrust laws are concerned, basically the same interest as other consumers. See also Item A above.

D. The Antitrust Division prepares written responses to citizen complaints, whether received directly or through a member of Congress. Where a citizen complaint reflects a possible antitrust violation, the Division will open a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the basic facts. If the preliminary inquiry indicates a possible antitrust violation, a full investigation is undertaken, the form of which is determined by the nature of the suspected violation. If the violation appears to be criminal in nature, a grand jury is impaneled to carry out the investigation; the complaining party might be a witness before the grand jury. If the grand jury returns an indictment, we would proceed with criminal prosecution; again the complaining party might be a witness. Where the preliminary investigation discloses a potential violation which appears to be sufficiently serious to justify action but not warranting criminal prosecution the Department undertakes a full investigation. In such cases, a Civil Investigation Demand may be issued or information may be requested from the potential defendants on a voluntary basis. Upon ascertaining that the facts indicate an antitrust violation, the Department would file a civil case seeking equitable relief; again the complaining party might be a witness at such a proceeding.

E. The Antitrust Division uses a variety of means to publicize its enforcement activities-including public statements by the Assistant Attorney General and his principal assistants, conferences with counsel and formal statements of policy (such as the Merger Guidelines of May 30, 1968). The Antitrust Division makes available copies of Pleadings and Briefs, as well as Reports to other agencies, under the Freedom of Information Act, when requested by members of Congress, the press, and the public. The Division's decisions on bringing specific cases, whether Criminal or Civil, are confidential, however, because of the Division's prosecutorial role. Publicity concerning the Division's internal deliberations would result in adverse publicity to parties who had not in fact violated the antitrust laws and could prejudice the interests of both the Government and defendants in litigated cases. Interested parties are, of course, free to appear as witnesses or to intervene in antitrust litigation instituted by the Department of Justice pursuant to the rules adopted by the courts. (Cf., Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129 (1967).) F. The Antitrust Division maintains field offices in New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The field offices receive citizen complaints and supply citizens with information relating to antitrust enforcement policy.