system “is subject to change during emergency situations” — gives the Army discretion to change dates within the expressly mandated February to March time-frame. Nor does the “Special Notice” set forth later in the Policy that “[a]reas in which vehicles have not been removed will be bypassed and moved to bottom of the list” give the Army discretion not to clear snow from these areas until after the deadline. See Navarette v. United States, 500 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir.2007) (concluding that Army’s obligation to “properly mark[ ] or fence[ ]” dangerous conditions was mandatory and explaining that it “retained discretion as to how to mark or fence drop-offs, but that does not mean it retained discretion whether to do so”); Soldano v. United States, 453 F.3d 1140, 1150 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the Snow Removal Policy expressly
holding that the undisputed fact that manufacturer complied with federal safety standards weighed against punitive damages holding that occupational health and safety administration osha standards were admissible holding that when state educational benefits exceed minimum federal standards the state standards are enforceable through the idea holding that flexibility in park services standards for establishing speed limits did not mean that the standards basic scientific safety specifications may be disregarded holding that safety standards regarding the safe design and use of trampolines including astm standards were admissible on the issue of the defendants negligence even though the defendants were unaware of the standards