and we need not address the Childers’ other arguments. We affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of the United States. AFFIRMED. 1 . The application of the exception does not depend, however, on whether federal officials actually took public policy considerations into account. All that is required is that the applicable statute or regulation gave the government agent discretion to take policy goals into account. United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 324-25, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 1274-75, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991). The Gaubert Court also clarified that low-level employees making discretionary day-today management decisions based on policy considerations also fall within the exception. Id. at 325, 111 S.Ct. at 1275. 2 .See, e.g., Kiehn v. United States, 984 F.2d 1100 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. United States, 949 F.2d 332 (10th
holding the government immune from suit because the decision to post warning signs about the danger of scaling cliffs at dinosaur national monument is part of an overall park plan left to the discretion of the nps holding united states government is immune from rico suit holding that because the spd at issue stated that it is made part of the group policy its terms were sufficient to find that the plan conferred discretion on the plan administrator recognizing that the municipal function test is used to determine both whether municipalities are immune from suit and immune from running of statutes of limitations holding state immune from suit involving a federal question