(a) Direct sales (without competition) may be utilized, when in the opinion of the authorized officer, a competitive sale is not appropriate and the public interest would best be served by a direct sale. Examples include, but are not limited to:
(1) A tract identified for transfer to State or local government or nonprofit organization; or
(2) A tract identified for sale that is an integral part of a project or public importance and speculative bidding would jeopardize a timely completion and economic viability of the project; or
(3) There is a need to recognize an authorized use such as an existing business which could suffer a substantial economic loss if the tract were purchased by other than the authorized user; or
(4) The adjoining ownership pattern and access indicate a direct sale is appropriate; or
(5) A need to resolve inadvertent unauthorized use or occupancy of the lands.
(b) Once the authorized officer has determined that the lands will be offered by direct sale and such determination has been issued, published and sent in accordance with procedures of this part, payment shall be made by the same instruments as authorized in § 2711.3-1(c) of this subpart.
(c) Failure to accept an offer to purchase the offered lands within the time specified by the authorized officer shall constitute a waiver of this preference consideration.
(d) Acceptance or rejection of an offer to purchase the lands shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 2711.3-1 (f) and (g) of this subpart.
[49 FR 29015, July 17, 1984; 49 FR 29796, July 24, 1984]
Notes of Decisions
Silver State Land, LLC v. Janice Schneider, 843 F.3d 982 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “In accordance with the Agreement, Henderson nominated the tract of land “for sale under the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Direct Sale Process as set forth in 43 CFR 2711.3-3.” JA 109. Citing the “formal Project Agreement” with Sports Center, Henderson’s nomination letter to…”
Baca v. King, 92 F.3d 1031 (10th Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “eyed to the BLM and restoring Plaintiffs grazing privileges ”; and (3) a remand of the exchange “to the Department of the Interior and/or the *1037 BLM” accompanied by an injunction requiring the agency “to provide Plaintiff with a hearing on the exchange as required by the…”
Silver State Land, LLC v. Schneider, 145 F. Supp. 3d 113 (D.D.C. 2015).
“In accordance with the MPA and the SNPLMA’s' “joint selection process,” the City nominated the Property for sale to LVNSC under BLM’s “Direct Sale Process as set forth in 43 CFR 2711.3-3.” AR 15 (Letter, dated Sept.”
Silver State Land LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020).
· cites it 3× “On September 7, 2011, Henderson requested that BLM utilize the direct sale procedures pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 2711.3-3 to sell an approximately 480-acre tract of public land within Henderson’s boundaries (the “Property”) to LVNSC.”
— 43 C.F.R. § 2711.3-3(1) — 1 case
Silver State Land LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020).
“On September 7, 2011, Henderson requested that BLM utilize the direct sale procedures pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 2711.3-3 to sell an approximately 480-acre tract of public land within Henderson’s boundaries (the “Property”) to LVNSC.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.