68244 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

§ 301.7433 Civil cause of action for certain

unauthorized collection actions.

(a) In general. If, in connection with

the collection of a federal tax with

respect to a taxpayer, an officer or an

employee of the Internal Revenue

Service recklessly or intentionally

disregards any provision of the Internal

Revenue Code or any regulation

promulgated under the Internal Revenue

Code, such taxpayer may bring a civil

action for damages against the United

States in federal district court. The

taxpayer has a duty to mitigate damages.

The total amount of damages

recoverable is the lesser of $1,000,000

($100,000 if the act giving rise to

damages occurred before July 31, 1996)

or the sum of—

(1) The actual, direct economic

damages sustained as a proximate result

of the reckless or intentional actions of

the officer or employee; and

(2) Costs of the action.

* * * * *

(d) Exhaustion of administrative

remedies in suits brought prior to July

31, 1996—(1) General. With respect to

civil actions filed in federal district

court prior to July 31, 1996, no action

may be maintained before the

exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Administrative remedies are exhausted

on the earlier of the following dates—

(i) The date the decision is rendered

on an administrative claim filed in

accordance with paragraph (f) of this

section; or

(ii) The date six months after the date

an administrative claim is filed in

accordance with paragraph (f) of this

section.

(2) Exception. If an administrative

claim is filed in accordance with

paragraph (f) of this section during the

last six months of the period of

limitations described in paragraph (g) of

this section, the taxpayer may file an

action in federal district court any time

after the administrative claim is filed

and before the expiration of the period

of limitations.

(3) No action in federal district court

for any sum in excess of the dollar

amount sought in the administrative

claim. With respect to civil actions filed

in federal district court prior to July 31,

1996, no action may be instituted for

any sum in excess of the amount

(already incurred and estimated) of the

administrative claim filed under

paragraph (f) of this section, except

where the increased amount is based

upon newly discovered evidence not

reasonably discoverable at the time the

administrative claim was filed, or upon

allegation and proof of intervening facts

relating to the amount of the claim.

(e) Exhaustion of administrative

remedies in suits brought after July 30,

1996—(1) General. With respect to civil

actions filed in federal district court

after July 30, 1996, the amount of

damages awarded under paragraph (a) of

this section may be reduced if the court

determines that the taxpayer has not

exhausted the administrative remedies

available within the Internal Revenue

Service.

(2) Administrative remedies

exhausted. Administrative remedies

shall be considered exhausted on the

earlier of—

(i) The date the decision is rendered

on a claim filed in accordance with

paragraph (f) of this section; or

(ii) The date six months after the date

an administrative claim is filed in

accordance with paragraph (f) of this

section.

(f) Procedures for an administrative

claim—(1) Manner. An administrative

claim for damages shall be sent in

writing to the district director (marked

for the attention of the Chief, Special

Procedures Function) of the district in

which the taxpayer resides.

(2) Form. The administrative claim

shall include—

(i) The name, current address, current

home and work telephone numbers and

any convenient times to be contacted,

and taxpayer identification number of

the taxpayer making the claim;

(ii) The grounds, in reasonable detail,

for the claim (include copies of any

available substantiating documentation

or correspondence with the Internal

Revenue Service);

(iii) A description of the injuries

incurred by the taxpayer filing the claim

(include copies of any available

substantiating documentation or

evidence);

(iv) The dollar amount of the claim,

including any damages that have not yet

been incurred but which are reasonably

foreseeable (include copies of any

available substantiating documentation

or evidence); and

(v) The signature of the taxpayer or

the taxpayer’s duly authorized

representative as defined in paragraph

(f)(3) of this section.

(3) Duly authorized representative.

For purposes of paragraph (f)(2)(v) of

this section, a duly authorized

representative is any attorney, certified

public accountant, enrolled actuary, or

any other person permitted to represent

the taxpayer before the Internal Revenue

Service who is not disbarred or

suspended from practice before the

Internal Revenue Service and who has

a written power of attorney executed by

the taxpayer.

* * * * *

Michael P. Dolan,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 97–33791 Filed 12–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Parts 250, 243 and 290, and 43

CFR Part 4

RIN 1010–AC21 and AC08

Administrative Appeals Process and

Policy for Release of Third-Party

Proprietary Information

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a public workshop,

withdrawal of a proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) has withdrawn the

proposed rule published in the Federal

Register on April 4, 1997 (62 FR 16116),

which would have authorized release of

third-party proprietary information in

certain circumstances to parties

involved in appeals and alternative

dispute resolution efforts. In addition,

MMS plans to revise the notice of

proposed rule published in the Federal

Register on October 28, 1996 (61 FR

55607), which would have amended

regulations governing the administrative

appeals process. Based in large part on

a report from the Royalty Policy

Committee, which provides advice to

the Secretary of the Interior under the

authority of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, MMS plans to revise its

regulations governing its administrative

appeals and alternative dispute

resolution processes, including

authority for disclosure of third-party

proprietary information. The MMS will

hold a public workshop to discuss these

matters before issuing the revised notice

of proposed rule. Interested parties are

invited to attend and participate in the

workshop and are requested to register

in advance.

DATES: The public workshop will be

held on Tuesday, January 27, 1998, 8:30

a.m.—3:00 p.m., Mountain Standard

Time.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held

at the Embassy Suites, Denver

Southeast, 7525 East Hampden Avenue,

Denver, Colorado 80231, telephone

number (303) 696–6644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Hugh Hilliard, Chief, Appeals Division
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 68245

(MS 9300), or Ms. Charlotte Bennett,

Appeals Division, Minerals

Management Service, 1849 C Street,

NW., Washington, D.C. 20240,

telephone number (202) 208–2622, fax

number (202) 219–5565, e:mail: Hugh

Hilliard@mms.gov or Charlotte

lBennett@mms.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

response to the notice of proposed rule

to amend regulations governing the

administrative appeals process,

published in the Federal Register on

October 28, 1996 (61 FR 55607), MMS

received as a comment a comprehensive

report from the Royalty Policy

Committee (RPC), which adopted a

recommendation from its Appeal and

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Subcommittee. The RPC, which is

composed of representatives from

States, Indian tribes and allottees, the

mineral industries, other Federal

agencies, and the public, advises the

Secretary of the Interior under a charter

authorized by the Federal Advisory

Committee Act. On March 27, 1997, the

RPC sent its report to the Secretary and

requested adoption of its proposal in

lieu of the October 28, 1996, proposed

rule.

The Secretary sent a response to the

RPC on September 22, 1997, stating that

the Department planned to prepare

revised proposed regulations to

implement the RPC proposal, with

several changes. In general, the changes

proposed by the RPC, as modified and

approved by the Secretary, will be as

follows:

• Increase efforts to resolve policy

disputes before conducting audits of

royalty payments;

• Further encourage informal

resolution of disputes;

• Clarify the standing of Indian

lessors and states in the administrative

appeals process; and

• Restructure the appeals process to

encourage earlier development of the

administrative record, facilitate

settlement efforts, impose time

limitations on the appeals process, and

allow for appeals to be filed with the

Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)

rather than with MMS so that appellants

can obtain a faster, more independent

review of legal issues raised on appeal.

The Secretary also stated that the

public would have the opportunity to

comment on these proposed regulations,

which could change before they become

final.

Thus, MMS intends to withdraw the

October 28, 1996 (61 FR 55607), notice

of proposed rule when it publishes the

revised notice of proposed rule

responding to the RPC report. Since the

revised proposed rule will contain

provisions that will allow for appeals to

be considered by the IBLA much earlier

than they are under current procedures,

MMS plans to rely on regulations for

release of third-party proprietary

information as set out at 43 CFR 4.31.

Consequently, MMS has withdrawn the

April 4, 1997 (62 FR 16116), proposed

rule, but will incorporate in the revised

notice of proposed rule on the appeals

process any contents of the withdrawn

rule that may be needed to supplement

current regulations at 43 CFR 4.31.

The revised notice of proposed rule

will affect not only appeals involving

actions taken by officials of the MMS’s

Royalty Management Program, but also

will affect appeals involving actions

taken by the Offshore Minerals

Management program of MMS under the

regulations at 30 CFR Part 250. In

addition, the rule will affect activities of

the Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Interior Board of Land Appeals, as set

out at 43 CFR Part 4 (though these

effects are expected to be limited to

appeals generated by actions of the

Minerals Management Service).

While MMS and the Department’s

Office of Hearings and Appeals plan to

move quickly to issue a new notice of

proposed rule on this subject, we also

want to take the opportunity to have

further public input by holding a public

workshop.

We invite participation at the

workshop by representatives of states,

Indian tribes and allottees, the minerals

industries, and the general public. We

plan to present our initial views as to

what will be in the revised proposed

rule and to engage in open discussion

with participants about any suggestions

for improvement. The date and location

of the workshop have been coordinated

with the next meeting of the Royalty

Policy Committee in order to facilitate

participation by Committee members.

In order to help us plan for a

successful workshop, we would

appreciate your preregistration by

January 15. If you plan to attend, please

contact Ms. Charlotte Bennett, using the

methods provided in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this

notice, and provide your name, address,

and telephone and fax numbers. This

will help us to ensure sufficient space

for all and to provide you with any

relevant information available in

advance of the meeting. In particular,

we hope to distribute some information

in advance about what we expect to

include in the revised notice of

proposed rule.

Background materials on the subject

can be found on the MMS internet

homepage at http://www.mms.gov/

mmab/rpcsub.htm (also accessible

through the general MMS homepage at

http://www.mms.gov/) of by contacting

the Appeals Division at the address

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this notice. Relevant

background would include the prior

notices of proposed rules, the March 27,

1997, RPC report, and the Secretary’s

letter of September 22, 1997.

Dated: December 22, 1997.

Walter D. Cruickshank,

Associate Director for Policy and

Management Improvement.

[FR Doc. 97–34096 Filed 12–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD11–95–003]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; termination.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is

terminating rulemaking which would

have amended the regulation for the

draws of the Alameda County vehicular

bridges crossing the Oakland Inner

Harbor Tidal Canal at the following

locations: Park Street, mile 7.3;

Fruitvale Avenue, mile 7.7; High Street,

mile 8.1; as well as the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers railroad bridge, mile 7.7 at

Fruitvale Avenue. The proposed rule

did not meet the reasonable needs of

navigation. The County apparently is no

longer interested in pursuing this

rulemaking.

DATES: This proposed rulemaking is

terminated December 12, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry

P. Olmes, Bridge Section, Eleventh

Coast Guard District, Building 50–6,

Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA

94501–5100, telephone (510) 437–3515.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

On May 9, 1995, the Coast Guard

published the NPRM in the Federal

Register (60 FR 24599). The Coast Guard

received 18 letters in response to the

NPRM, 6 of which requested a public

hearing. The Coast Guard then decided

to reopen the comment period and hold

a public hearing; a notice of reopening

of the comment period and of the public

hearing was published in the Federal