(a) The following are prohibited:
(1) Operating or using aircraft on lands or waters other than at locations designated pursuant to special regulations.
(2) Where a water surface is designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, operating or using aircraft under power on the water within 500 feet of locations designated as swimming beaches, boat docks, piers, or ramps, except as otherwise designated.
(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.
(b) The provisions of this section, other than paragraph (c) of this section, shall not be applicable to official business of the Federal government, or emergency rescues in accordance with the directions of the superintendent, or to landings due to circumstances beyond the control of the operator.
(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the owners of a downed aircraft shall remove the aircraft and all component parts thereof in accordance with procedures established by the superintendent. In establishing removal procedures, the superintendent is authorized to: (i) Establish a reasonable date by which aircraft removal operations must be complete; (ii) determine times and means of access to and from the downed aircraft; and (iii) specify the manner or method of removal.
(2) Failure to comply with procedures and conditions established under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is prohibited.
(3) The superintendent may waive the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section or prohibit the removal of downed aircraft, upon a determination that: (i) The removal of downed aircraft would constitute an unacceptable risk to human life; (ii) the removal of a downed aircraft would result in extensive resource damage; or (iii) the removal of a downed aircraft is impracticable or impossible.
(d) The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations.
(e) The operation or use of hovercraft is prohibited.
(f) Violation of the terms and conditions of a permit issued in accordance with this section is prohibited and may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2023 · leading case:
Sturgeon v. Frost, 139 S. Ct. 1066 (2019).
Sturgeon v. Frost, 139 S. Ct. 1066 (2019).
· cites it 4× “§ 100751 (b) ; 36 C.F.R. § 2.17 (e) (2018). But Sturgeon claims that Congress created an Alaska-specific exception *1073 to that broad authority when it enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 94 Stat.”
United States v. Austin Carey, 929 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 5× “The panel held that the permit exception in 36 C.F.R. § 2.17 (a)(3) – which prohibits delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means – is an affirmative defense for which the defendant, not the government, bore the burden of proof.”
Sturgeon v. Frost, 136 S. Ct. 1061 (2016).
“See 36 CFR § 2.17 (e) (2015). After Park Service rangers informed Sturgeon that he was prohibited from using his hovercraft within the boundaries of the preserve, Sturgeon filed suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.”
John Sturgeon v. Sue Masica, 768 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See 36 C.F.R. § 2.17 (e) (stating that “[t]he operation or use of hovercraft is prohibited” within NPS-administered lands and waters, which include the Yukon-Charley).”
United States v. Oxx, 127 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 4× “The government appeals from an order dismissing a petty offense information charging Defendants-Appellees with the delivery of persons by parachute in a national park without a permit and not in an emergency, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.17 (a)(3) (1996). Our jurisdiction…”
United States v. Oxx, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Utah 1999).
· cites it 10× “Background On April 18, 1996, the United States filed a petty offense Information charging each of the named defendants in separate counts as to each but joined for convenience with violating 36 C.F.R. § 2.17 (a)(3) (1995) by “deliver[ing] persons by parachute within the Glen…”
United States v. Albers, 226 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 5× “The defendants, asserting that BASE jumping is a type of powerless flight permitted under 36 C.F.R. § 2.17 (a)(1), moved to dismiss under Fed.”
Webster v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 107 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
“” 36 C.F.R. § 2.17 (a)(1), (3). It is clear from plaintiffs’ Complaint and, in particular, the attached correspondence from the NPS to plaintiffs that, no later than 1991, plaintiffs were aware in detail of the regulatory framework about which they complain.”
San Francisco Herring Assoc. v. Usdoi, 33 F.4th 1146 (9th Cir. 2022).
“In fact, if anything, Sturgeon confirms that the Park Service’s position here is the better one. The dispute in Sturgeon arose from the Park Service’s attempt to apply its regulation banning hovercrafts, 18 SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASS’N V.”
United States v. Albers, 136 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 1998).
“Albers was arrested and charged with violating 36 C.F.R. §§ 2.17 (a)(3) and 2.34(a)(4). He moved to suppress the evidence seized by the rangers; the district court granted the motion as to the videotapes and film, reasoning that the rangers should have examined them at the time…”
United States v. Oxx, 980 F. Supp. 405 (D. Utah 1997).
· cites it 3× “BACKGROUND On April 18,1996, the United States filed a petty offense Information charging each of *406 the named defendants in separate counts as to each but joined for convenience with violating 36 C.F.R. § 2.17 (a)(3) (1995) by “delivering] persons by parachute within the Glen…”
— 36 C.F.R. § 2.17(a)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Albers, 226 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2000).
“The defendants, asserting that BASE jumping is a type of powerless flight permitted under 36 C.F.R. § 2.17 (a)(1), moved to dismiss under Fed.”
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.