(a) When authorized by regulations set forth in this chapter, the superintendent may issue a permit to authorize an otherwise prohibited or restricted activity or impose a public use limit. The activity authorized by a permit shall be consistent with applicable legislation, Federal regulations and administrative policies, and based upon a determination that public health and safety, environmental or scenic values, natural or cultural resources, scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, proper allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities will not be adversely impacted.
(b) Except as otherwise provided, application for a permit shall be submitted to the superintendent during normal business hours.
(c) The public will be informed of the existence of a permit requirement in accordance with § 1.7 of this chapter.
(d) Unless otherwise provided for by the regulations in this chapter, the superintendent shall deny a permit that has been properly applied for only upon a determination that the designated capacity for an area or facility would be exceeded; or that one or more of the factors set forth in paragraph (a) of this section would be adversely impacted. The basis for denial shall be provided to the applicant upon request.
(e) The superintendent shall include in a permit the terms and conditions that the superintendent deems necessary to protect park resources or public safety and may also include terms or conditions established pursuant to the authority of any other section of this chapter.
(f) A compilation of those activities requiring a permit shall be maintained by the superintendent and available to the public upon request.
(g) The following are prohibited:
(1) Engaging in an activity subject to a permit requirement imposed pursuant to this section without obtaining a permit; or
(2) Violating a term or condition of a permit issued pursuant to this section.
(h) Violating a term or condition of a permit issued pursuant to this section may also result in the suspension or revocation of the permit by the superintendent.
[48 FR 30275, June 30, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 29470, Aug. 18, 1986]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2021 · leading case:
United States v. Frandsen, 212 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2000).
United States v. Frandsen, 212 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 5× “Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (“defendants”) were arrested and convicted for protesting without a permit at the Canaveral National Seashore (“the park”), a national park, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 1.6 . They challenged on its face the constitutionality of 36 C.”
United States v. Marcavage, 609 F.3d 264 (3rd Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “There, Marcavage was cited for violating the terms of a permit under 36 C.F.R. § 1.6 (g)(2). Several months later, Marcavage was mailed a second citation for interfering with agency function in violation of 36 C.”
Marcavage v. Nat'l Park Serv., 666 F.3d 856 (3rd Cir. 2012).
“, Saperstein, while holding Marcavage’s hands behind his back, escorted him off the Sixth Street sidewalk.”
MARCAVAGE v. Nat'l Park Serv., 777 F. Supp. 2d 858 (E.D. Pa. 2011).
· cites it 2× “He then issued Marcavage a citation for “violating a term or condition of a permit” under 36 C.F.R. § 1.6 (g)(2). Later, Marcavage received a citation through the mail for “interfering with agency functions” under 36 C.”
Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Salazar, 921 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
“” But, unlike the regulations promulgated postNess, the referenced provisions govern permit decisions generally and are not enacted as part of a statutory scheme under Section 124. Plaintiffs vaguely state in their Motion that Section 1.”
Clipper Cruise Line, Inc. v. United States, 855 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1994).
“See 36 C.F.R. § 1.6 . Defendants contend further that they allocated entry permits based on the same merit system that determined, without objection from plaintiff, whether concession permits would be granted.”
United States v. Moore, 640 F. Supp. 164 (S.D.W. Va 1986).
“” 36 C.F.R. § 1.6 (a). The United States points to this provision and proclaims the obligation of the State to obtain a permit.”
United States v. Frandsen, 212 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (“defendants”) were arrested and convicted for protesting without a permit at the Canaveral National Seashore (“the park”), a national park, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 1.6 . They challenged on its face the constitutionality of 36 C.”
Noem v. Haaland (D.S.D. 2021).
“36 C.F.R. § 1.6 (a). In turn, § 1.6(c) states that “the superintendent shall deny a permit that been properly applied for only upon a determination that the designated capacity for an afea □□ facility would be exceeded; or that one or more of the factors set forth in paragraph…”
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.