An administrative law judge (ALJ) denided EPA's motion to strike the defendent's "fair notice" affirmative defense. EPA argued that that the defendant cannot raise this defense because the D.C. Circuit has already made an explicit finding of fact that the defendant had notice of EPA's position on the regulatory status of the "purge mixture", for which the defendant is being accused of violating RCRA, as it exits the paint applicators as early as September 1998.