WPC_ f'iAdX@ ɱUTr\W(\Ii@#c-xiؐI%3n#cgS'+/_CP񾱞KA'S󿍎*>~#r-36^Ccݡ !Lnj1 d /B*% VDŽ;вO &\LY"AKF`^{KuymN+ Sy_Z+(gu i(VRt֭ A4˹2 8`7PDRsBF 3V챥ERyX0"lWa"jb承-~ }gЈr"ZD5h:G҉ie&Vwʣ4()[RW^~ N+=Nv@%?W]D9ADzW[riE-g/\JKcׯe>^ k%#h U>) %g 0(m U:  ^ w 4   0DbH 0 DP 0UbE mN  0  0) 0 0 0 0^ 08 0 0C 0& 0 0 0 0p! 0;" 0# 0# 0@$ 0$ 0% 0m& 0;' 0( 0( 0) 0U* 00+ 0<B+ 0~+ 0><, 0vz, 0`, 0`P- 0`- 0`. 0`p. 08. 0/ 02/ 0 0 0:1 0YB1 0_1 0 1 0j3 0n4 B*5 D/6 D+K6 0v6 D/7 0)8 068 0-9 0:5: 0^o: 0<: ; 0C; 0(< AM:<U6<U><U*<<\%=?CBlCcEcE> kEkE NNNNN@rYrYrYrYrYrYrYrYrYrYrYrYrYrYrYrYrYrY B^^^^^^^^^^^ 0 n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 0N=_HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0<( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($,`  "CG Times Bold!y.s u- H3|x(3$ !  - -($  *  *+ (_2623  ..- -U*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5    B$    6    _Thefactthatweareconcernedherewithinternalproceduresand  guidelines,asembodiedintheArmyCorpsManual,ratherthanwith  federalstatutesorregulationsdoesnotchangeour_analysis._ԀThe \ _Gaubert_presumptionappliestointernalprocedures: 2  X e 8  Notallagenciesissuecomprehensiveregulations,  however.Someestablishpolicyonacase-by-casebasis,  whetherthroughadjudicatoryproceedingsorthrough \ administrationofagencyprograms.Otherspromulgate 2 regulationsonsometopics,butnotonothers.In X addition,anagencymayrelyoninternalguidelines . ratherthanonpublishedregulations....When   establishedgovernmentalpolicy,asexpressedorimplied   bystatute,regulation,oragencyguidelines,allowsa `  Governmentagenttoexercisediscretion,itmustbe 6   presumedthattheagent'sactsaregroundedinpolicy  \  whenexercisingthatdiscretion. 2    _Gaubert_,499U.S.at324.*D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5    B$    2    _Thenauticalchartcontainsawarningthatstates"[_t]he_Ԁprudent  marinerwillnotrelysolelyonanysingleaidtonavigation."In  addition,thechartincludesseveralcautions,includingonethat \ the"[_t]emporary_Ԁchangesordefectsinaidstonavigationarenot 2 indicatedonthischart.SeeNoticetoMariners."*A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7H(X7  ?X%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7I(X7&  d dG)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7  ?X%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7I(X7G)2dxd0KS.SampleKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ԁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2C$ !  ($RSTIA<< c<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial R B$    7    _Theargumentdependsontheassumptionthatthechartwouldhave  beenaccuratehaditbeenbasedonasurveyconductedunderthe  morestringent_NOAA_Ԁstandards.Itisuncleartousthatthis \ argumentwaspresentedbyappellantsonappeal,butwewillassume 2 _arguendo_Ԁthatitremainsaviable_argument.___  B$    8    _Appellantshavenotchallenged_NOAA_'sactualuseoftheCorps'  dataasnegligent,butratherhavechosentochallenge_NOAA_'s  decisiontousetheCorps'datatocreatethenauticalchart. \ IndianTowingwouldonlyapplyintheformercase,whereonce_NOAA_ 2 exerciseditsdiscretiontousetheCorps'dataithadtodosoin X anonnegligent_manner.___  B$    5    _Plaintiffsarguethatthepurposeofthe1990surveyisa  disputedissueofmaterialfact.Aswestatedabove,however,both  partiesconcededthesurveywasindeedaconditionsurveyandthus \ notasurveyconductedforthepurposeofcreatinganautical 2 chart. b B$    1    _TheM/T_Limar_measuredover545feetinlengthandhadabeamof  approximatelyninetyfeet.TheM/T_Limar_sdraftwasthirtythree  feet,nineinches.  4 B$    3    _In_Gercey_,thiscourtheldthat  8  the[SAA]doesnotcontainanexpressexemptionforharm \ causedbytheexerciseof"discretionaryfunctions",a 2 categorywhichincludes,andprobablyshouldbelimited X to,basic"policyjudgmentsastothepublicinterest." . Althoughthe[SAA]containsnoexpressexception,we   thinkthatsoundprinciplesdemandthattheactbe   construedassubjecttosuchdiscretionaryfunction `  exception.Weretherenosuchimmunityforbasicpolicy 6   makingdecisions,alladministrativeandlegislative  \  decisionsconcerningthepublicinterestinmaritime  2  matterswouldbesubjecttoindependentjudicialreview   inthenotunlikelyeventthattheimplementationof   thosepolicyjudgmentsweretocauseprivateinjuries.d    Id.at539(emphasisadded)(citationsandfootnoteomitted).The `  othercircuitcourtsthathaveconsideredthisissuehavealso 6 concludedthatthe"SAAswaiverofimmunityissubjecttothe   discretionaryfunctionexception."MidSouthHoldingCo.,Inc.v.  UnitedStates,225F.3d1201,1204(11thCir.2000)(citing_Tew_v. h UnitedStates,86F.3d1003,1005(10thCir.1996)(providingcase > lawfromtendifferentcircuits,includingthisone,supportingthe d existenceofanimplieddiscretionaryfunctionintheSAA)). : PlaintiffspointtoLanev.UnitedStates,529F.2d175(4thCir.  1975),insupportoftheirargumentthatthediscretionaryfunction  exceptiondoesnotapplyintheSAAcontext.TheFourthCircuit, l however,nowagreesthattheexceptionshouldbereadintotheSAA. B Tiffanyv.UnitedStates,931F.2d271,277(4thCir.1991). B$    9    _TheFifthCircuittakesadifferentposition:  8  [Nauticalcharts]arenotjustcasualpublicationswhich \ maybeofinteresttoorfallintothehandsofan 2 indeterminatenumberofusers.Thesechartsarepublished X bytheGovernmentwiththecertainknowledgethatthey . (_i_)willbedisseminatedthroughreliablechannelsto   shipsandcrewsand(ii)willbereliedonasaccurate   portrayalsofthewaterscovered.Indeed,this `  expectationismandatedasaruleofprudentconducton 6   thepartofshipowners.Sailingwithoutachartorwith  \  anobsoleteoneranksasmorethanamereindiscretion.  2  ManyCourtshavefoundsuchshipstobeunseaworthy.   Othershavefoundmarinerswhofollowsuchpractice   guiltyof"glaring"or"gross"fault.d    8  Whatthemaritimelawexactsofshipownerthrough `  decisionsofadmiraltycourtsmayhardlybeignoredby 6 theExecutiveAgencyresponsibleforsuchcharts.The   Governmentmustthereforebeartheburdenofusingdue  careinthepreparationanddisseminationofsuchcharts h andnotices.>   De_Bardeleben_ԀMarineCorp.v.UnitedStates,451F.2d140,14849 : (5thCir.1971)(footnotesomitted).WhiletheFifthCircuit  believesthegovernmenthasadutytoproducechartswithduecare,  itgoesontosaythat"theGovernment'sobligationceasesatthat l  timeinwhichaprudentshipownernavigatorwouldhavereasonably  receivedtheNoticetoMariner."Id.at149.Webelievean  adequatewarning,suchasaNoticetoMariners,regardingpossible \ inaccuraciesinachart"mayabsolvethe[government]ofliability" 2 because"thenavigatorwouldnolongerbeentitledtorelyonthe X [navigational]aid."WhitneySteamship,747F.2d,at78(_Tenney_, . J.,dissenting).Thus,where,ashere,marinersarewarnedtolook   torecentNoticestoMarinersforthelatestinformationregarding   awaterway,theduecareobligationismet. 6 B$    4    _In_Berkovitz_,theSupremeCourtwasspecificallyaddressingthe  discretionaryfunctionexceptiontothe_FTCA_.486U.S.at533.We  holdthatthe_Berkovitz_testappliesincasesinvolvingtheimplied \ discretionaryfunctionexceptiontotheSAA.Othercourtshave 2 appliedthe_Berkovitz_testwhenanalyzingtheissueofthe X applicabilityofthediscretionaryfunctionexceptioninasuit . broughtundertheSAA.See,e.g.,_Theriot_v.U.S.,245F.3d388,   397(5thCir.1998);_Cassens_v.St.LouisRiverCruiseLines,Inc.,   44F.3d508,51114(7thCir.1995).Furthermore,thereis `  evidenceontherecordthatbothpartiesagreedthatifthe 6   discretionaryfunctionexceptionapplies,itissubjecttothe  \   analysisofthe_Berkovitz_test. d(+2B$ !      0  (O$ !  __XXXXWXX84XXdd8  *!@4 4 UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  UBW@ FortheFirstCircuit  UBX4XAy) ` dE<C ` A D  No.021454 ) y @ _LIMAR_ԀSHIPPINGLTD.AND_OMI_ԀCORP.,  % @Plaintiffs,Appellants,    @tt)v. -}  @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, )  @<< Defendant,Appellee.   Ay) ` dE<` A W @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT < @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS  @ [Hon.MorrisE._Lasker_,U.S.DistrictJudge] n Ay) ` dE<` A @ @'Before % @Torruella,CircuitJudge,  @\ \ Stahl,SeniorCircuitJudge, -}  @ andHoward,CircuitJudge.  )" Ay) ` dE<Z#` A [#%     ThomasE.Clinton,withwhomRobertE.CollinsandClinton& @$' _Muzyka_,P.C.,wereonbrief,forappellants. %f (   MichelleT._Delemarre_,AdmiraltyTrialAttorney,withwhom % proceduresaredetailedinthe[_NOAA_  HydrographicManual].` x` x ArmyCorpsManualat14(b).Here,thepartiesagreedandthe F ! districtcourtfoundthattheArmyCorpsconductedtheBoston !B# Harborsurveyasa"conditionsurvey,"whichisaperiodicsurvey #% carriedout"todeterminethepresentconditionofnavigation J% ' channels[and]underwaterfeatures,butisnotasurveyin &F") conjunctionwiththepreparationofanauticalchart."ArmyCorps (#+ Manualat210.ThereisnomandatorylanguageintheArmyCorps N*%- ManualindicatingthattheArmyCorpsmustfollowthe_NOAA_ +J'/ _guidelineswhencarryingoutaconditionsurvey,evenifitis  awarethatsuchasurveymaybeusedbyotheragenciestoprepare \ nauticalchartswhatmattersisthepurposeofthesurveyatthe X timeitisconductedbytheArmyCorps.\   5      ׀Sincethepurposeofthe   surveyatthetimeitwasconductedwastodeterminethecondition `  oftheharborratherthantochartitsdepth,theArmyCorpswas  \  undernoobligationtocomplywithNOAAguidelines.    ` Havingfoundthatthechoicetoconductthecondition d  surveyaccordingtotheArmyCorpsguidelinesconstituteda `  discretionarychoice,wenowturntothesecondpartofthe   Berkovitztestandconsiderwhetherthatdecisionisofthetype h thediscretionaryfunctionexceptionwasdesignedtoprotect. d Berkovitz,486U.S.at537.   ` Where"aregulationallowstheemployeediscretion,the l veryexistenceoftheregulationcreatesastrongpresumptionthat h adiscretionaryactauthorizedbytheregulationinvolves  considerationofthesamepolicieswhichledtothepromulgationof p  theregulations."   6      ׀UnitedStatesv.Gaubert,499U.S.315,347 !l" (1991).Plaintiffbearstheburdenofrebuttingthispresumption  anddemonstratingthattheconductatissueisnotpolicybased. \ SeeWoodv.UnitedStates,290F.3d29,37(1stCir.2002).Here, X theplaintiffsfailtomeetthisburden.IndeedtheCorps'   decisiontofollowitsownlessstringentguidelinesismostlikely `  achoiceaimedtomaximizeefficientuseofresources,andisthus  \  policybased.See,e.g.,VarigAirlines,467U.S.at820   (recognizingtheefficientallocationofagencyresourcesasa d  policychoice). `   2.ApplicabilityoftheDiscretionaryFunctionExceptiontoNOAA's   useoftheArmyCorpsSurveyinCreatingtheChart   b ` ThisleavesonlytheargumentthatonceNOAAmadethe Z decisiontocreateachart,ithadadutytoproduceit V accurately.ZD    7      ׀InIndianTowingCo.v.UnitedStates,350U.S.61  (1955),theSupremeCourtheldtheUnitedStatesliablefor  negligentlymaintainingalighthousebuiltbytheCoastGuard.Id. \ at69.Marinersreliedonthelighthousefornavigationand X plaintiff'sshipwasdamagedwhenitranagroundbecausethelight   wentout.Id.at62.TheIndianTowingCourtindicatedthatonce `  theCoastGuardexerciseditsdiscretiontooperatethelighthouse,  \  itwasunderanobligationtodosowithreasonablecare.Id.at   68.WefindthatIndianTowingcanbedistinguishedfromthe d  instantcasebecausetherethegovernmentconcededthatthe `  discretionaryfunctionexceptiondidnotapply.Id.at64.In   thiscase,however,thegovernmentvigorouslyargues,andweagree, h thatthedecisionbyNOAAtousetheCorps'datatocreatethe d chartwasdiscretionaryandwasthusthetypeofdecisionthe  discretionaryfunctionexceptionwasmeanttoprotect.[   8       l  ` The"elementofjudgment"prongoftheBerkovitztestis h satisfiedbecauseNOAA'sdecisiontousetheArmyCorpssurveyin  factcontainsanelementofjudgment.Asstatedabove,the p  discretionaryfunctionappliesunlessa"federalstatute, !l" regulationorpolicyspecificallyprescribesacourseofactionfor "$ anemployeetofollow."Berkovitz,486U.S.at537;accordWood, t$& 290F.3dat36.NowhereinNOAAsHydrographicManualareemployees  directedtouseasthebasisforchartsonlysurveysconductedby \ NOAAorbyotherentitiesfollowingNOAAsguidelines.Infact, X themanualonlystipulatesthatifNOAAitselfconductsasurvey,   itmustconformwiththemanual'sspecificdirectives.Here,NOAA `  didnotconductthe1990surveyoftheBostonHarborwhichformed  \  thebasisforthechart.Sincethereisnospecificregulation,   andthusnomandatorylanguageeither(1)directingthe d  cartographerastothesurveysthatoughttobeusedwhenmakinga `  chart,or(2)prohibitinguseofnonNOAAconformingsurveysin   creationofachart,itwaswithinthecartographersdiscretionto h usethesurveymadebytheArmyCorps.SeeBairdv.UnitedStates, d 653F.2d437,441(10thCir.1981).   ` PlaintiffsciteInreGlacierBay,71F.3d1447(9thCir. l 1995)insupportoftheirargumentthatthediscretionaryfunction h doesnotapplyherebecauseNOAAdidnotfollowmandatory  proceduresregardinghydrographicsurveys.GlacierBayinvolved p  thegroundingofavesselonarockthatwasomittedfromthe !l" nauticalchart.Id.at144950.Inthatcase,theNinthCircuit "$ allowedanegligencesuitagainstthegovernmenttoproceedbecause t$& NOAAdidnotcomplywithitsinternalguidelinesinconductingthe  &p!( surveyforthechart.Seeid.at1453(holdingthatthe"general '#* grantofdiscretionwassupersededbymandatoryrequirements"and x)$, thus"thediscretionaryexceptionfunction[sic]doesnotapply"). $+t&. TheGlacierBaycasedealtwithsurveysconductedbyNOAA  hydrographersforthepurposeofpreparingnauticalcharts.Id.at \ 1450.GlacierBayisinapposite,however,becausethiscasedeals X withNOAA'sdecisiontouseanArmyCorpsconditionsurveyforthe   preparationofachartratherthanwithNOAA'sfailuretofollow `  itsownproceduresinconductinganindependenthydrographic  \  survey.    ` ThesecondrequirementoftheBerkovitztest,thatthe d  judgmentisthetypethediscretionaryfunctionwasdesignedto `  protect,isalsosatisfiedwithrespecttoNOAA'sdecision.The   allocationofresourcesfortheproductionanddisseminationof h oceanchartsbyabudgetconstrainedentitylikeNOAAisapolicy d decisionthatfallswithintheambitofthediscretionaryfunction  exception.Allocationofresourcesandbudgetmanagementinvolve l prioritizingandarequintessentiallypolicybasedchoices.See h VarigAirlines,467U.S.at820;Weissichv.UnitedStates,4F.3d  810,813(9thCir.1993)(findingbudgetandpersonnelallocation p  decisionsfallwithindiscretionaryfunctionexception);Chutev. !l" UnitedStates,610F.2d7,12(1stCir.1979)(indicatingthe "$ allocationofresourcesamongcompetingprioritiesisapolicy t$& function).IfthisCourtweretoagreewithplaintiffs,wewould  &p!( besecondguessingNOAA'spolicydecisionandwouldbegoing '#* againsttheclearintentoftheimplieddiscretionaryfunction x)$, exception,whichis"topreventjudicialsecondguessingof $+t&. legislativeandadministrativedecisionsgroundedinsocial,  economic,andpoliticalpolicy."Berkovitz,486U.S.at53637 \ (quotingVarigAirlines,467U.S.at814). X  ` BecauseNOAAsdecisiontorelyontheArmyCorps'survey   forthecreationofitschartwasapolicybaseddiscretionary `  decision,thediscretionaryfunctionexceptionapplies.Giventhe  \  applicabilityofthediscretionaryfunctionexceptiontoboththe   ArmyCorpsandNOAAdecisions,wefindthattheUnitedStateshas d  notwaivedsovereignimmunityandcannotbesubjectedtosuitin `  thismatter.SeeWood,290F.3dat3334.    ` EvenifthedecisiontousetheCorps'surveyisnot h protectedbythediscretionaryfunctionexception,wefindthatno d liabilityattacheshere.IndianTowingdoesnotstandforthe  propositionthatoncetheUnitedStatesundertakesafunction,such l asproductionofanauticalchart,"themosteffectiveandbest h meansmustalwaysbeselected."Chute,610F.2dat17.Instead,  thegeneralprinciplegleanedfromIndianTowingisthat"the p  governmentmustnotmislead,andmustnotinducerelianceupona !l" beliefthatitisprovidingsomethingwhich,infact,itisnot "$ providing."UnitedStatesv.Sandra&DennisFishingCorp.,372 t$& F.2d189,195(1stCir.1967).  &p!(  ` Here,thegovernmentcannotbeheldliableunderthe '#* principlesestablishedbyIndianTowing,because(1)itis x)$, unreasonableformarinerstorelysolelyonthechart;and(2)in $+t&. thealternative,thegovernmentdidnotcreatethedangerinthe  BostonHarbor.InorderforIndianTowingtoapply,thechart \ wouldneedtoinducereasonablerelianceonthepartofmariners. X SeeWhitneySteamshipCo.v.UnitedStates,747F.2d69,78(2d   Cir.1984)(Tenney,J.,dissenting)(arguingthatIndianTowing `  appliesonlywhererelianceisreasonable).Giventheconstant  \  possibilitythatsiltingorothereventsmayalterthedepthofthe   harboratanygivenpoint,relianceonayearoldchartwas d  unreasonable.Further,thestatelawrequirementthatforeign `  vesselsemployaspecialharborpilotintheBostonHarborsuggests   thatatleasttheMassachusettslegislaturebelievedthatreliance h ontheaccuracyofachartisunreasonable.Weresuchreliance d reasonable,thennauticalchartsalonewouldbesufficientfor  navigation,andpresumablyamarinerinexperiencedwiththeBoston l Harborwouldbeabletomaneuveravesselsafelythroughitswaters h bysimplyusingachart.   ` Eveniftherewerenostatutoryrequirementforan p  experiencedharborpilot,theprudentmarinerdoesnotrelyon !l" chartsalonewhennavigatingabodyofwater.See,e.g.,Sheridan "$ Transp.Co.v.UnitedStates,897F.2d795,798(5thCir.1990) t$& ("aidstonavigationdonotexistinavacuumandtherearevarious  &p!( documentswhichamarinermustusetodeterminewhetherheis '#* justifiedinrelyingonanaid");TidewaterMarine,Inc.v.Sanco x)$, Int'l,Inc.,113F.Supp.2d987,997(E.D.La.2000)("Buoys, $+t&. radar,Loran,charts,NoticestoMariners,andlookoutsareall  aidstonavigation.Noneofthesealonecanbeconsideredabsolute \ indicatorsofseaconditions.").Here,thechartitselfcontained X prominentwarningsthatmarinersshouldlooktoothersourcesfor   uptodateinformationabouttheharbor.Becauseamarinercannot `  reasonablyrelysolelyonachart,nauticalchartsdonotinduce  \  reliancesuchthatthegovernmenthasadutytoensuretheir   accuracy,especiallywherethegovernmentspecificallydirects d  marinerstootherpublicationsthroughwarningsorcautionsonthe `  chartitself.b   9          ` Wherethegovernmentdoesnotcreateadangerbutrather  onlyfailsto"renderadequateperformance,"liabilitydoesnot \ attach.Brownv.UnitedStates,790F.2d199(1stCir.1986) X (distinguishingIndianTowing,where"thegovernmentcreateda   dangerbyrepresentingthatanoperatinglighthousewaspresent" `  fromcaseswherethegovernmentdoesnotitselfcreatethedanger,  \  asinthecasewherethegovernmentissuesweatheradvisoriesbut   doesnotcontroltheweather).Here,thegovernmentdidnotcreate d  thedangersoftheBostonHarbor,butmerelyundertooktoproduce `  achartdepictingthedepthsoftheharbor.   @hh# IV.Conclusion  h  ` Fortheabovestatedreasons,thisCourtaffirmsthe 0 judgmentofthelowercourt. ,  ` Affirmed.