BLM Direct Sale Authority and Limited-Utility Land Disposal Rules

Stop the Sale of Public Lands

AKA “Protect American Land from Foreign and Corporate Takeover”




Which agency/agencies promulgated the regulation? *
Department of the Interior – Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Which title, parts, and/or sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) should be rescinded? *
43 CFR §2711.3–3 — Direct Sales 43 CFR §2711.5 — Disposal of Land with Limited Utility
What is your name?
—OPTIONAL--
Is your proposed rescission a notice of proposed rulemaking, final rule, direct final rule, interim final rule, or interpretive rule? *
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
What is the name of the regulation being rescinded, if applicable? *
BLM Direct Sale Authority and Limited-Utility Land Disposal Rules
Please provide a short summary of the justifications for the rescission. *
Rescinding these rules will prevent noncompetitive sales of public land to private entities without full public notice or environmental review. It will protect American land from being quietly handed over to corporate interests and restore public trust in federal land management.
Please insert the address of the agency. [NPRM, DFR, and IFR only]
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240
Please insert the contact information for the agency. *
blm_wo_comments@blm.gov
What is the background for the regulation being rescinded? *
The Bureau of Land Management currently uses authority under 43 CFR §2711.3–3 and §2711.5 to dispose of public land it classifies as having “limited utility” or where continued federal ownership is considered “inconvenient.” These rules allow direct, noncompetitive sales to private parties without public bidding or transparent justification. In practice, this has enabled speculative land grabs, fossil fuel development, and the erosion of public access and ecological protections—often with little or no community involvement. The original intent of these provisions under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) has been distorted into a fast-track path for privatization.
Explain the reasons for the rescission. *
Public lands are a shared national asset—not a backdoor subsidy for wealthy developers These provisions have facilitated the privatization of millions of acres without competitive processes or public accountability Many sales have supported extractive industries, degraded ecosystems, or reduced recreational and tribal access Rescission would restore the presumption of public retention unless a clear, democratically vetted benefit is established Requires that all future transfers undergo robust environmental review, public input, and open bidding
Describe the text of the relevant C.F.R. provisions as it will exist after the rescission. *
All authority under 43 CFR §2711.3–3 and §2711.5 for direct sale or disposal of public land based on “limited utility” or “inconvenient management” shall be rescinded. The BLM shall retain federal lands unless a competitive, publicly disclosed process with full NEPA review and community consultation determines that transfer of ownership is in the national interest. No land shall be sold below fair market value or without at least 90 days of public notice and opportunity for formal comment.
Please insert the name of the current agency head. *
Doug Burgum
Please insert the title of the agency head. *
Secretary of the Interior