43 C.F.R. § 3833.32

How do I transfer a mining claim or site?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) State law governs transferring mining claims or sites. A transfer is effective in the manner and on the date provided by state law, not the date you file it with BLM.

(b) You must file in the BLM State Office a notice of the transfer that includes:

(1) The name and, if available, the serial number BLM assigned to the claim or site when the notice or certificate of location was originally recorded (the person who transferred you ownership or legal interest should have this number);

(2) Your name and current mailing address; and

(3) A copy of the legal instrument or document that you used to transfer the interest in the claim or site under state law.

(c) For each mining claim or site transferred, each transferee must pay the full processing fee specified in the table of service charges and fees in § 3830.21 of this chapter.

(d) BLM will notify the claimant of record with BLM of any action it takes regarding a mining claim or site. If BLM is required by law to give a claimant notice of any new legal requirements, BLM has properly given notice by sending the notice to the claimant of record with BLM.

[68 FR 61071, Oct. 24, 2003, as amended at 70 FR 58879, Oct. 7, 2005]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2021–2026 · leading case: Durand v. Bernhardt (D.D.C. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Durand v. Bernhardt (D.D.C. 2021). “§ 1744 (b) (requiring mining claimants to file “a copy of the official record” of the location with the BLM); 43 C.F.R. § 3833.32 (b) (requiring transferees to file notice of transfer with BLM state office).”

Saltzman v. United States Dep't of the Interior (D. Ariz. 2025). “94 ), ¶ VII (citing 43 C.F.R. § 3833.32 ).) And while 19 Plaintiff alleges that BLM geologists and inspectors interacted with Plaintiff and accepted 20 his reports for occupancy and use (TAP ¶ VII), such facts do not establish that the BLM 21 failed to observe its own process…”

Saltzman (D. Ariz. 2026). “Thus, for all the reasons reasons stated 22 above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts that would allow this 23 Court to infer the Decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 24 25 26 7 Plaintiff also repeatedly cites…”

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.