FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 5, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10685

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -005 61 -C V -C B -M E D D I E T Y R O N E C R A N F O R D , P l ai nt i ff -C ou nt er D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , D ef endant -C ou nt er - C l ai m ant -T hi rd-P artyP la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s H O W A R D M E L E C H , D I A N E G . M E L E C H , a s P e r s ona l R e pr e s e nt a t i ve a nd A dm i ni stra tri x o f the E st at e of R o n a ld C . M e le c h , d e c e a s e d , T hi rd-P arty- D ef endant sA p p e lla n ts .2 ________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 5, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg e: T h e is s u e in th is ap p e a l is w h e th e rth e “d is c r e tio n a ry f u n c tio n e x c e p tio n ” to th e w a iv e r s o f

s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity in th e S u its in A d m ir a lty A c t a n d th e P u b lic V e s s e ls A c t ap p lie s to d e c is io n s o f f e d e r a l o f f ic ia ls in m a rk in g a n d c h o o s in g n o t to r e m ove as ubm e r ge d w r e c k. E ddi e T y r one C r a nf or d, H ow a r d M e l e c h, a nd D i a ne M e l e c h f i l e d c om pl a i nt s a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s r e ga r di ng pe r s ona l i nj ur i e s a nd d e a th s u f f e r e d in a n a llis io n o f

ap le a s u r e b o a t a n d as u b m e r g e d w r e c k . T h e ir com pl ai nt s a l l eged negl i gence by the go vernm ent , and the di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed the c om pl a i nt s f

orl a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. B e c aus e w e c onc l ude the m arki ng of a s ub m er ged w re ck and the re fusa l t o rem ov e i tar e di sc re t i on ary d e c i s i o n s g r o u n d e d i n s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , a n d e c o n o mi c p o l i c y , w e a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n A ug ust9, 20 03 , a s event ee n-footm ot or bo atop er at ed by R on al d M el ec h a n d c a rry in g H o w a r d M e le c h a n d E d d ie C r a n f o r d s tru c kas u b m e r g e d o b je c t in3

M obi l e B a y , appr oxi m a t e l y 100 y a r ds north of F or tM or ga n be a c h. A tthe t i m e of th e a llis io n , th e b o a t w a s tr a v e lin g e a s tw a r d p a r a lle l to th e s h o r e a t ap p r o x im a te ly 30 m i l e s a n hour . U pon i m pa c t , C r a nf or d and R ona l d M e l e c h w e r e thr ow n f r om the bo atand i nj ured. C ranford w as i nj ured, and R on al d M el ec h d i ed. H ow ar d M e le c h , w h o w a s a ls o in ju r e d , h e lp e d C r a n f

o r d b a c kin to th e b o a t, b u t R o n a ld M el ech ’ s b o d y w as n o tfo u n d u n t i l th e n ex td ay. T he m ot or bo atstruck a s ub m er ged v es se l , kn ow n as the F ortM organ W r e c k. W he r e c l os e s tt o the s ur f a c e of the w a t e r , the w r e c k i s be tw e e n 6 a nd 18 i nches bel ow the surf

ac e. T he M el ec hs and C ranford p re se nt ed evi dence, w hi ch th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n c lu d e d is lik e ly to b e a d m is s ib le , th a t th e s u b m e r g e d w r e c kis af orm e rU ni t e d S t a t e s A rm y M i ne P l a nt e rde l i be r a t e l y s unk i n the 1930s by the f e de r a l W orks P r ogr e s s A dm i ni s tr a t i on t o s e rve a s abr e a kw a t e r . T he gove rnm e nt as se rt s thati tdo es no tkn ow i f these fa ct s are ac cura t e. T he C oa s tG ua r d i ni t i a l l y c ha rt e d a nd m a rke d the w r e c k i n 1992 w i th a t e m por a ry l i ght e d buoy . I n 1996, the C oa s tG ua r d r e pl a c e d the t e m por a ry buoy w i th a t el epho ne-pol e- type pi l i ng , dri ven i nt o the bed o f M ob i l e B ay appr oxi m a t e l y 164 f

e e tnorth- northw e s tof

the pa rtof

the w r e c k c l os e s tt o the surf ac e. T he pi l i ng bo re tw o o rang e and w hi t e s i gn s w i th the w ords “ D anger W r e c k. ” O ve rthe y e a r s , the C oa s tG ua r d r e c e i ve d r e port s of ve s s e l s s tr i ki ng the4

w r e c k de s pi t e the m a rki ng. A f t e rar e que s tf

r om the A l aba m aD e pa rtm e ntof C ons e rva t i on, the C oa s tG ua r d a ga i n m odi f i e d the m a rke ron A ugus t5, 2003, a nd r e pl a c e d the s i gns w i th af l a s hi ng l i ghta nd as i x- f oot - w i de r e d tr i a ngl e w i th the l e tt e r s “ W R 2. ” A tthe t i m e of the a l l i s i on, the m a rke rc ons i s t e d of the pi l i ng, the fl as hi ng l i gh t , and the re d tri angl e. C ranford, H ow ar d M el ec h, and D i ane M el ec h, the w i fe of the decea se d R o n a ld M e le c h , f

ile d s e p a r a te c o m p la in ts a g a in s t th e g o v e rn m e n t in f e d e r a l c o u rt, w hi ch w er e c on sol i dat ed for purpo se s of di sc ov ery. T hey a l l eged thatnegl i gence o f th e g o v e rn m e n t in m a rk in g th e F o rt M o r g a n W r e c ka n d in r e f u s in g to r e m o v e it caused the death o f R on al d M el ec h and pers on al i nj uri es t o C ranford and H ow ar d M e l e c h . Th e y a l l e g e d th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u rth a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e i rc l a i ms u n d e rth e F e d e r a l T o rt C la im s A c t, 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 4 6 ( b ) , 2 6 7 1 - 2 6 8 0 , th e S u its in A dm i r a l ty A c t , 46 U . S . C . app. §§ 741- 52, the P ubl i c V e s s e l s A c t , 46 U . S . C . §§ 781- 90, a nd the W r e c k A c t , 33 U . S . C . §§ 409, 411, 412, 414 a nd 415. T he go vernm entm ov ed t o d i sm i ss the com pl ai nt s f or l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on on the gr ound tha tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s ha d notw a i ve d i t s s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty . T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d the m ot i ons . T he di s tr i c tc ourtr e l i e d on U ni t ed S t at es v. G aubert , 49 9 U . S . 31 5, 11 1 S . C t . 12 67 (199 1), and con cl ud ed that the m a rki ng of

the F ortM or ga n W r e c k a nd r e f us a l t o r e m ove i tf

e l l w i thi n the5

“ d i s c r e t i o n a ry f

u n c t i o n e x c e p t i o n ” o f

th e Fe d e r a l To rtCl a i ms A c t , s e e 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 6 8 0 ( a ) , a n d th a t th e w a iv e r s o f s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity in th e S u its in A d m ir a lty A c t a n d th e P u b lic V e s s e ls A c t d id n o t ap p ly . I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW

“ W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l of the a c t i on f

orl a c k of subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on . ” O chra n v . U ni t ed S t at es , 11 7 F . 3d 49 5, 49 9 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) . “ [ W ] e vi e w the f a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the pl a i nt i f

f . ” P a r i s e v. D el t a A i rl i nes, Inc. , 14 1 F . 3d 14 63 , 14 65 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON T o res ol ve thi s app ea l , w e m ustaddres s three m att er s: (1) the l egal st andard for the di sc re t i on ary f

un ct i on exce pt i on ; (2) w hether the m arki ng of the F ort M or ga n W r e c k f

a l l s w i thi n the e xc e pt i on; a nd ( 3) w he the rthe r e f us a l t o r e m ove the w r e c k f

a l l s w i thi n the e xc e pt i on. A l though the pa rt i e s a r e i n s ha rp c onf l i c ton e ve ry i s s ue , w e a gr e e w i th the a r gum e nt s of the gove rnm e ntand the de c i s i on of the d is tr ic t c o u rt. A . T

he D is c r e t i onar

y Func t i on E

x c e pt i on I s G ov e rne d by G aube r t

, N ot D r ake T ow i ng. T he U ni t ed S t at es i s i m m un e f rom sui tun l es s i tconsent s t o b e s ued. U ni t ed S ta te s v . S h e rw o o d , 3 1 2 U .S . 5 8 4 , 5 8 6 , 6 1 S . C t. 7 6 7 , 7 6 9 ( 1 9 4 1 ) . T h e S u its in A dm i r a l ty A c t( S A A ) , 46 U . S . C . app. §§ 741- 52, pr ovi de s aw a i ve rof s ove r e i gn6

i m m un i ty and the “ sol e j uri sdi ct i on al basi s f or adm i ra l ty c l ai m s a gai nstthe U ni t ed S ta te s ,” M id - S o u th H o ld in g C o ., I n c . v . U n ite d S ta te s , 2 2 5 F .3 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 0 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2000) , tha tdo noti nvol ve publ i c ve s s e l s , s e e M a r i ne C oa t i ngs of A l a . , I nc . v. U n ite d S ta te s , 7 1 F .3 d 1 5 5 8 , 1 5 6 0 - 6 1 & n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . T h e P u b lic V e s s e ls A c t( P V A ) , 46 U . S . C . §§ 781- 90, pr ovi de s aw a i ve rof s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty f

or a dm i r a l ty c l a i m s i nvol vi ng publ i c ve s s e l s . B oth w a i ve r s a r e s ubj e c tt o the di s c r e t i ona ry f

unc t i on e xc e pt i on of

the F e de r a l T or tC l a i m s A c t( F T C A ) . S e e M i dSo u th H o l d i n g , 2 2 5 F. 3 d a t1 2 0 3 - 0 4 ( ap p l y i n g e x c e p t i o n t o w a i v e ri n SA A ) ; U . S. F i r e I ns . C o. v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 806 F . 2d 1529, 1535 ( 11th C i r . 1986) ( appl y i ng e x c e p tio n to w a iv e rin P V A ) . B ec ause the go vernm enthas r ai se d a fa ctual chal l enge t o subj ec tm att er j uri sdi ct i on , the M el ec hs and C ranford m ustes t abl i sh thatthe di sc re t i on ary f unc t i on e xc e pt i on doe s notappl y . S e e O S I , I nc . v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 285 F . 3d 947, 9 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt in G au b e rt “d e v e lo p e d atw o - s te p te s t to de t e rm i ne w he the rthe gove rnm e nt ’ s c onduc tm e e t s the di s c r e t i ona ry f unc t i on e xc e pt i on. ” M i l e s v. N a va l A vi a t i on M us e um F ound. , I nc . , 289 F . 3d 715, 720 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c itin g G au b e rt, 4 9 9 U .S . a t 3 2 2 - 2 3 , 1 1 1 S . C t. a t 1 2 7 3 - 7 4 ) . W e co n sid erfirs t w h eth erth e c o n d u ct in v o lv es “‘ an elem en t o f ju d g m en t o r c h o ice,’” O S I, Inc. , 28 5 F . 3d at95 0 (qu ot i ng G aubert , 49 9 U . S . at32 2, 11 1 S . C t . at12 73 ),7

w h ic h w ill b e th e c a s e u n le s s “‘af e d e r a l s ta tu te , r e g u la tio n , o rp o lic y s p e c if ic a lly pres cr i bes acourse of ac t i on em bo dyi ng a f i xed o r r ea di l y a sc ert ai nabl e s t andard. ’ ” H ughe s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 110 F . 3d 765, 768 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng A ut e ry v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 992 F . 2d 1523, 1529 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ) . T he c onduc tne e d notbe

“ confi ned t o the po l i cyor pl anni ng l evel . ” G aubert , 49 9 U . S . at32 5, 11 1 S . C t . at 1 2 7 5 . W e the n a s k w he the rthe j udgm e ntorc hoi c e i s gr ounde d i n c ons i de r a t i ons o f p u b lic p o lic y , b e c au s e th e “p u rp o s e o f th e [ d is c r e tio n a ry f

u n c tio n ] e x c e p tio n is t o ‘ pr e ve ntj udi c i a l “ s e c ond- gue s s i ng” of l e gi s l a t i ve a nd a dm i ni s tr a t i ve de c i s i ons gr ounde d i n s oc i a l , e c onom i c , a nd pol i t i c a l pol i c y thr ough the m e di um of a n a c t i on i n t o rt . ’ ” I d . a t3 2 2 - 2 3 , 1 1 1 S . C t . a t1 2 7 3 - 7 4 ( q u o t i n g Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S . A. E m pr e s ade V i a c a o A e r e aR i o G r a nde ns e ( V a r i g A i r l i ne s ) , 467 U . S . 797, 814, 104 S . C t . 27 55 , 27 65 (198 4)). “ W hen est abl i shed go vernm ent al po l i cy , as expres se d ori m pl i e d by s t a tut e , r e gul a t i on, ora ge nc y gui de l i ne s , a l l ow s a[ g] ove rnm e nt agentt o exerci se di sc re t i on , i tm ustbe pres um ed thatthe agent ’ s a ct s are grou nd ed i n pol i c y w he n e xe r c i s i ng tha tdi s c r e t i on. ” I d. a t324, 111 S . C t . a t1274. O ur i nqui ry doe s notf

oc us e i the ron the s ubj e c t i ve i nt e ntof the gove rnm e nta ge nt , i d. at32 5, 11 1 S . C t . at12 75 , or on w hether the agentac tual l y w ei gh ed po l i cy c ons i de r a t i ons , O S I , I nc . , 285 F . 3d a t950- 51, but“ on the na tur e of the a c t i ons8

t aken and o n w hether they are susc ept i bl e t o p ol i cyanal ys i s, ” G aubert , 49 9 U . S . at 3 2 5 , 1 1 1 S . C t . at1 2 7 5 . T o su cceed , th e M el ech s an d C ran fo rd m u stest ab l i sh

“ tha tthe c ha l l e nge d a c t i ons a r e notthe ki nd of [ di s c r e t i ona ry ] c onduc ttha tc a n be sa i d t o b e groun ded i n the po l i cyof the re gu l at ory r egi m e. ” I d. S uch con du ct in c lu d e s , f

o re x a m p le , “d r [ iv in g ] a n au to m o b ile o n am is s io n c o n n e c te d w ith . . . of f i c i a l dut i e s . ” I d. a t325 n. 7, 111 S . C t . a t1275 n. 7. T he M e l e c hs a nd C r a nf or d c ont e nd tha tw e s houl d be gui de d by tw o of our e a r l i e rde c i s i ons : D r a ke T ow i ng C o. , I nc . v. M e i s ne rM a r i ne C ons truc t i on C o. , 765 F . 2d 1060 ( 11th C i r . 1985) , a nd U . S . F i r e I ns ur a nc e C o. v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 806 F . 2d 1 5 2 9 . W e d is a g r e e . O u rh o ld in g s in D r a k e T o w in g a n d U .S . F ir e I n s u r a n c e b o th turne d e xpr e s s l y on the pr i nc i pl e tha t“ ope r a t i ona l ” c onduc tf a l l s out s i de the di sc re t i on ary f

un ct i on exce pt i on , se e D ra ke T ow i ng , 76 5 F . 2d at10 64 ; U . S . F i re I n s u r a n c e , 8 0 6 F .2 d a t 1 5 3 5 - 3 7 , a n d th e S u p r e m e C o u rt r e je c te d th a t p r in c ip le in G aubert . S ee 49 9 U . S . at32 6, 11 1 S . C t . at12 75 ; se e a l so A ut ery, 99 2 F . 2d at 15 27 . W e do n otfol l ow prec edent s thatar e “ cl earl y i ncon si st ent ” w i th an i nt erveni ng deci si on of the S up re m e C ou rt . S ee G arre ttv. U ni v. of A l a. at B i rm i ng ham B d. of T rs . , 34 4 F . 3d 12 88 , 12 92 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). T he M e l e c hs a nd C r a nf or d w oul d ha ve us rul e tha tthe di s c r e t i ona ry f unc t i on e x c e p tio n d o e s n o t ap p ly to th e e x e c u tio n o f ag o v e rn m e n ta l d e c is io n , b u t th is9

a r g u m e n t m e r e ly r e s ta te s th e o p e r a tio n a l c o n d u c t d is tin c tio n r e je c te d in G au b e rt. Th e M e l e c h s a n d Cr a n f o r d r e l y o n I n d i a n To w i n g Co . v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 3 5 0 U . S. 61, 76 S . C t . 122 ( 1955) , a nd c ont e nd tha tthe di s c r e t i ona ry f unc t i on e xc e pt i on d o e s n o t ap p ly “o n c e th e [ g ]o v e rn m e n t e x e r c is e [ s ] its d is c r e tio n to w a rn th e p u b lic o f ad a n g e r , [ b e c au s e ] it h a [ s ] am a n d a to ry ‘h o rn b o o kto rt la w ’ o b lig a tio n to p e r f o rm its ta s k‘in ac a r e f

u l m a n n e r .’” T h is a r g u m e n t f a ils . W e h a v e p r e v io u s ly e x p la in e d th a t “[ t]h is in te rp r e ta tio n o f I n d ia n T o w in g . . . h a s b e e n s e v e r e ly unde r c ut , i f

nota l t oge the rdi s a vow e d, by the S upr e m e C ourti n G aube rt , ” O c hr a n, 11 7 F . 3d at50 5, and i n any event , the go vernm entdi d n oti nv ok e the di sc re t i on ary f unc t i on e xc e pt i on i n I ndi a n T ow i ng, s e e M onz on v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 253 F . 3d 567, 57 2 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ).

B . T he M arki ng of the For t Mor gan W r e c k Fal l s W i thi n the D is c r e t i onar

y Func t i on E

x c e pt i on. T h e M e le c h s a n d C r a n f o r d c h a lle n g e s e v e r a l d e c is io n s o f th e C o a s t G u a r d in m a rki ng the F ortM or ga n W r e c k, s uc h a s pl a c i ng the m a rke r164 f e e ta w a y f

r om th e w r e c ka n d u s in g o n ly o n e m a rk e r , b u t a ll o f th e s e d e c is io n s in v o lv e d e le m e n ts of j udgm e ntorc hoi c e . T he pe rt i ne nts t a tut e , r e gul a t i ons , a nd i nt e rna l pol i c y a l l ow th e C o a s t G u a r d b r o a d d is c r e tio n in d e c id in g h o w to m a rkaw r e c k . T h e s ta tu te thatgrant s the C oastG uard autho ri ty t o m ark w re cks provi des, “ T he S ec re t ary m ay m a rk. . . a n y s u n k e n v e s s e l o ro th e ro b s tru c tio n e x is tin g o n th e n a v ig ab le10

w a te r s . . . o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s in s u c h m a n n e ra n d f o rs o lo n g a s , in h is ju d g m e n t, the ne e ds of

m a r i t i m e na vi ga t i on r e qui r e . ” 14 U . S . C . § 86 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he r e l e va ntr e gul a t i ons pr ovi de tha tthe C oa s tG ua r d “ m a y m a rk f orthe pr ot e c t i on of m a r i t i m e na vi ga t i on a ny s truc tur e , s unke n ve s s e l orothe robs truc t i on tha ti s not s ui t abl y m a rke d by the ow ne r . ” 33 C . F . R . § 64. 33( a ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he A i ds t o N avi gat i on A dm i ni stra t i on M anual (“ A T O N M anual ”) , w hi ch cont ai ns i nt ernal gui de l i ne s of

the C oa s tG ua r d r e ga r di ng the m a rki ng of w r e c ks , s t a t e s tha t“ the C o a s t G u a r d r e ta in s th e d is c r e tio n to d e v ia te o rau th o r iz e d e v ia tio n f r o m ” its “r e q u ir e m e n ts .” T h e A T O N M a n u a l c r e a te s “n o d u tie s o ro b lig a tio n s to th e p u b lic t o com pl y w i th the procedures” desc ri bed i n i t , and the A T O N M anual st at es that

“ no m e m be rof

the publ i c s houl d r e l y upon the [ ] pr oc e dur e s a s ar e pr e s e nt a t i on by the C oa s tG ua r d a s t o the m a nne rof pe r f orm a nc e of

[ the ] a i ds t o na vi ga t i on m i s s i on. ” T he M e l e c hs a nd C r a nf or d f a i l t o i de nt i f

y “ ‘ af e de r a l s t a tut e , r e gul a t i on, orpol i c y [ tha t ] s pe c i f

i c a l l y pr e s c r i be s ac our s e of a c t i on e m body i ng af

i xe d or r e a di l y a s c e rt a i nabl e s t a nda r d. ’ ” H ughe s , 110 F . 3d a t768 ( quot i ng A ut e ry , 992 F .2 d a t 1 5 2 9 ) . T he c l os e rque s t i on i s w he the rthe de c i s i ons of the C oa s tG ua r d i n m a rki ng the F ortM or ga n W r e c k w e r e “ s us c e pt i bl e t o pol i c y a na l y s i s ” a nd “ the ki nd of cond uctthatcan b e s ai d t o b e groun ded i n the po l i cyof the re gu l at ory r egi m e. ”11

G au b e rt, 4 9 9 U .S . a t 3 2 5 , 1 1 1 S . C t. a t 1 2 7 5 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t p e r s u a s iv e ly e x p la in s th a t d e c is io n s in m a rk in g aw r e c kin v o lv e s o c ia l, p o litic a l, a n d e c o n o m ic pol i c y c ons i de r a t i ons , s uc h a s t a ki ng i nt o a c c ountthe know l e dge a nd c us t om s of in te rn a tio n a l m a r in e r s , b a la n c in g th e n e e d s o f p le a s u r e a n d c o m m e r c ia l w a te r c r a f t, a n d e v a lu a tin g a g e n c y r e s o u r c e c o n s tr a in ts , w h ic h in c lu d e b u t a r e n o t lim ite d to f i na nc i a l c onc e rns . T he M e l e c hs a nd C r a nf or d r e s pond tha tthe s e c ons i de r a t i ons a r e n o t “tru e p o lic y ju d g m e n ts .” T h e y a s s e rt th a t th e s e c o n s id e r a tio n s a r e m e r e ly the appl i ca t i on of profes si on al st andards, no tpo l i cydeci si on s; al l di sc re t i on ary c onduc tby the gove rnm e nti nvol ve s budge t a ry c ons i de r a t i ons ; a nd none of the a s s e rte d c o n s id e r a tio n s im p lic a te “n a tio n a l p o lic y .” W e a gree w i th the go vernm entfor three re as on s. F i rs t , the cont ent i on that the C oastG uard appl i ed profes si on al st andards “ i s j ustanother w ayof sayi ng that the consi dera t i on s . . . ar e s o p re ci se l y f orm ul at ed thatdeci si on s a tthe op er at i on al l e ve l ne ve ri nvol ve the e xe r c i s e of di s c r e t i on w i thi n the m e a ni ng of [ the d is c r e tio n a ry f

u n c tio n e x c e p tio n ], an o tio n th a t [ th e S u p r e m e C o u rt] h a [ s ] . . . r e j e c t e d. ” I d. a t331, 111 S . C t . a t1278. I t“ m a y be tha tc e rt a i n de c i s i ons r e s t i ng o n m a th e m a tic a l c a lc u la tio n s , f o re x a m p le , in v o lv e n o c h o ic e o rju d g m e n t in c a rry i ng outthe c a l c ul a t i ons , ” butthe de c i s i ons of the C oa s tG ua r d i n m a rki ng a w r e c k“a r e n o t o f

th a t g e n r e .” I d . S e c o n d , a lth o u g h “[ w ]e r e c o g n iz e th a t . . .12

b u d g e ta ry c o n s tr a in ts a r e a lm o s t a lw a y s im p o rta n t to g o v e rn m e n t d e c is io n s ,” O chra n, 11 7 F . 3d at50 2, and “ [f ] i nanci alconsi dera t i on s a l on e m ayno tm ake a d eci si o n o n e i n v o l v i n g p o l i cy, ” H u g h es, 1 1 0 F . 3 d at7 6 9 , th e d eci si o n s o f th e co ast gu ar d i nv ol ved m ore than fi nanci al consi dera t i on s. T hi rd, no thi ng i n o ur ca se l aw su p p o rt s th e M el ech s’ an d C ran fo rd ’ s assert i o n th atp o l i cy co n si d erat i o n s m u st i m pl i ca t e “ nat i on al ” pol i cy . T he M el ec hs and C ranford ask us t o revi ew evi dence r e ga r di ng the a c tua l c ons i de r a t i ons of the de c i s i onm a ke r s f

orthe C oa s tG ua r d, but w e d o n o t f

o c u s e ith e ro n th e s u b

je c tiv e in te n t o f

th e g o v e rn m e n t a g e n ts , G au b e rt, 49 9 U . S . at32 5, 11 1 S . C t . at12 75 , or on w hether the agent s a ctual l y w ei gh ed pol i c y c ons i de r a t i ons , O S I , I nc . , 285 F . 3d a t950- 51.

C . T h e D ecisi o n N

o t T o R em o ve th e Fo rt

Mo rg a n W

reck Fa l l s W i thi n the D is c r e t i onar

y Func t i on E

x c e pt i on. T h e M e le c h s a n d C r a n f o r d a ls o c h a lle n g e th e r e f u s a l o f th e g o v e rn m e n t to re m ov e the F ortM organ W re ck. T hey c on t end thatthi s dec i si on fa i l s the fi rs tst ep o f th e G au b e rt te s t b e c au s e as e c tio n o f th e W r e c kA c t, 3 3 U .S .C . § 4 0 9 , a lle g e d ly i m po se s ano nd i sc re t i on ary duty on the go vernm entt o rem ov e the F ortM organ W re ck. T he M el ec hs and C ranford ass ertthatthe go vernm ent , as the al l eged ow ne rof the s unke n ve s s e l , m us t“ c om m e nc e the i m m e di a t e r e m ova l of [ the v e s s e l] a n d p r o s e c u te s u c h r e m o v a l d ilig e n tly .” 3 3 U .S .C . § 4 0 9 . W e d is a g r e e . A l tho ug h w e vi ew i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the M el ec hs and C ranford13

th e e v id e n c e th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d e lib e r a te ly s an kth e v e s s e l f o rale g itim a te publ i c purpos e , the r e m ova l r e qui r e m e nti n the W r e c k A c tdoe s notappl y t o the g o v ern m en ti n th i s ci rcu m st an ce. C f. C h u t e v . U n i t ed S t at es, 6 1 0 F . 2 d 7 , 1 1 (1 st C i r . 1979) ( c onc l udi ng tha tde l i be r a t e c r e a t i on of aw r e c k by gove rnm e ntf orN a vy t a r ge tpr a c t i c e nots ubj e c tt o W r e c k A c t ) . T he W r e c k A c tbe c a m e l a w a s pa rtof the R i vers and H arbo rs A pp ropri at i on A ctof 18 99 , and i tm ustbe re ad t og ether w i th the othe rs e c t i ons of tha ts t a tut e . S e e S w a i n v. S c hw e i ke r , 676 F . 2d 543, 546 ( 11th C i r . 1982) ( “ [ S ] t a tut e m us tbe c ons i de r e d a s aw hol e . . . . ” ) . S e c t i on 409 spec i fi ca l l y prohi bi t s the ob struct i on of navi gabl e w at er s by ves se l s and re qu i re s ow ners prom pt l y t o rem ov e s un ken v es se l s, bu tan ea rl i erse ct i on of the st atut e, se ct i on 40 3, spea ks t o “ [o] bstruct i on of navi gabl e w at er s gener al l y” and p rovi des tha tthe gove rnm e ntm a y author i z e the c r e a t i on of obs truc t i ons , i nc l udi ng b r e a k w a te r s . 3 3 U .S .C . § 4 0 3 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . W e r e s e c tio n 4 0 3 n o t to e x is t, it w o u ld b e ab s u r d to r e a d s e c tio n 4 0 9 to r e q u ir e th e g o v e rn m e n t im m e d ia te ly to r e m ove ave s s e l tha ti tde l i be r a t e l y s a nk f orapubl i c purpos e . S e e R e gi ons B a nk v. P rovi dentB ank, Inc. , 34 5 F . 3d 12 67 , 12 76 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “ [T ] he S up re m e C ou rt h a s r e p e a te d ly h e ld th a t ‘[ i]f p o s s ib le , [ ac o u rt] s h o u ld a v o id c o n s tru in g [ a ] s ta tu te i n aw a y th a tp r o d u c e s [ ] ab s u r d r e s u l t s . ’ ” ( q u o t i n g D e w s n u p v . Ti mm, 5 0 2 U . S. 4 1 0 , 4 2 7 , 1 1 2 S . C t. 7 7 3 , 7 8 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ) ) ; s e e a ls o G r e e n v . B o c kL au n d ry M a c h . C o .,14

490 U . S . 504, 527, 109 S . C t . 1981, 1994 ( 1989) ( S c a l i a , J . , c onc urr i ng) ( not i ng thata s t atut e m ustbe construed t o avo i d “ un thi nk abl e” and “ bi zarr e” re sul t s) . In addi t i on , the l as tcl ause of se ct i on 40 9 evi dences thatthe re m ov al re qu i re m entdo es n o t ap p ly to th e g o v e rn m e n t in a n y c ir c u m s ta n c e , b e c au s e f a ilu r e to c o m p ly w ith tha tr e qui r e m e nts ubj e c t s as unke n ve s s e l t o di s c r e t i ona ry r e m ova l by the g o v e rn m e n t. 3 3 U .S .C . § 4 0 9 ( s ta tin g th a t f a ilu r e to r e m o v e as u n k e n v e s s e l “s h a ll b e c o n s id e r e d a s a n ab a n d o n m e n t” o f th e v e s s e l a n d “s u b

je c t th e [ v e s s e l] to re m ov al by the U ni t ed S t at es ”) ; se e a l so B uffa l o B ay ou T ransp. C o. v. U ni t ed S t at es , 37 5 F . 2d 67 5, 67 7 (5th C i r. 19 67 ) ( ho l di ng thatse ct i on 40 9 d oes notre qu i re the U ni t ed S t at es t o rem ov e “ ea ch sunk en vess el i n n avi gabl e w at er s” ). T h e r e m a in in g is s u e in v o lv e s w h e th e rth e r e f u s a l o f th e g o v e rn m e n t to r e m o v e aw r e c kth a t it in te n tio n a lly s a n kf o rap u b lic p u rp o s e n e c e s s a r ily i m pl i c a t e s publ i c pol i c y . T he M e l e c hs a nd C r a nf or d unde r s t a ndabl y of

f e rno a r gum e nttha tthi s de c i s i on w a s not“ s us c e pt i bl e t o pol i c y a na l y s i s . ” G aube rt , 499 U . S . a t325, 111 S . C t . a t1275. W e c onc l ude tha tthe de c i s i on nott o r e m ove the w r e c k i s s hi e l de d f

r om j udi c i a l s e c ond- gue s s i ng by the di s c r e t i ona ry f unc t i on e x c e p tio n .15 I V . CONCL US I ON T h e d i sm i ssal o f th e co m p l ai n t s o f th e M el ech s an d C ran fo rd i s AF F I RME D.