71 F.3d 1447 (9th Cir. 1995). However, Glacier Bay is inapplicable. That case involved a lawsuit against the United States alleging negligence in the preparation of nautical charts. Id. at 1449. The plaintiffs in Glacier Bay attempted to assert that the term “third party” as used in section (h) could include the United States, but the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument based on the plain reading of the statute. Id. at 1455. Thus, the holding is simply not relevant to the claims and arguments presented here. S.J. Louis also cites several eases that uphold an owner or operator’s liability for an oil spill under section 1321(b), even where a third party’s “act or omission was the immediate cause of the spill.” E.g., United States v. Tex-Tow, Inc., 589 F.2d 1310, 1316 (7th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). The reasoning behind these cases is not
holding that im proper means may be wrongful by reason of a statute or other regulation or a recognized rule of common law or perhaps an established standard of a trade or profession holding defendant liable for penalty notwithstanding fault of a third party holding that although compliance with administrative safety regulations did not establish due care it was evidence of due care holding that an owner or operator of a discharging facility is liable to a section 1321b6 civil penalty even where it exercised all due care and a third partys act or omission was the im mediate cause of the spill holding that exceptions  such as the act or omission of a third party  to strict liability under section 13385 of californias water code are affirmative defenses