40 CFR § 1090.1720 - Affirmative defense provisions.
(a) Any person liable for a violation under § 1090.1715(e) or (f) will not be deemed in violation if the person demonstrates all the following:
(1) The violation was not caused by the person or the person's employee or agent.
(2) If PTD requirements of this part apply, the PTDs account for the fuel, fuel additive, or regulated blendstock found to be in violation and indicate that the violating fuel, fuel additive, or regulated blendstock was in compliance with the applicable requirements while in that person's control.
(3) The person conducted a quality assurance program, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(i) A carrier may rely on the quality assurance program carried out by another party, including the party that owns the fuel in question, provided that the quality assurance program is carried out properly.
(ii) A retailer or WPC is not required to conduct sampling and testing of fuel as part of their quality assurance program.
(b) For a violation found at a facility operating under the corporate, trade, or brand name of a fuel manufacturer, or a fuel manufacturer's marketing subsidiary, the fuel manufacturer must show, in addition to the defense elements required under paragraph (a) of this section, that the violation was caused by one of the following:
(1) An act in violation of law (other than the Clean Air Act or this part), or an act of sabotage or vandalism.
(2) The action of any retailer, distributor, reseller, oxygenate blender, carrier, retailer, or WPC in violation of a contractual agreement between the branded fuel manufacturer and the person designed to prevent such action, and despite periodic sampling and testing by the branded fuel manufacturer to ensure compliance with such contractual obligation.
(3) The action of any carrier or other distributor not subject to a contract with the fuel manufacturer, but engaged for transportation of fuel, fuel additive, or regulated blendstock despite specifications or inspections of procedures and equipment that are reasonably calculated to prevent such action.
(c) For any person to show under paragraph (a) of this section that a violation was not caused by that person, or to show under paragraph (b) of this section that a violation was caused by any of the specified actions, the person must demonstrate by reasonably specific showings, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the violation was caused or must have been caused by another person and that the person asserting the defense did not contribute to that other person's causation.
(d) To demonstrate an acceptable quality assurance program under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a person must present evidence of all the following:
(1)
(i) A periodic sampling and testing program adequately designed to ensure the fuel, fuel additive, or regulated blendstock the person sold, dispensed, supplied, stored, or transported meets the applicable per-gallon standard. A person may meet this requirement by participating in the NFSP under § 1090.1405 that was in effect at the time of the violation.
(ii) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, a gasoline manufacturer must also participate in the NSTOP specified in § 1090.1450 at the time of the violation.
(2) On each occasion when a fuel, fuel additive, or regulated blendstock is found to be in noncompliance with the applicable per-gallon standard, the person does all the following:
(i) Immediately ceases selling, offering for sale, dispensing, supplying, offering for supply, storing, or transporting the non-complying fuel, fuel additive, or regulated blendstock.
(ii) Promptly remedies the violation and the factors that caused the violation (e.g., by removing the non-complying fuel, fuel additive, or regulated blendstock from the distribution system until the applicable standard is achieved and taking steps to prevent future violations of a similar nature from occurring).
(3) For any carrier that transports a fuel, fuel additive, or regulated blendstock in a tank truck, the periodic sampling and testing program required under paragraph (d)(1) of this section does not need to include periodic sampling and testing of gasoline in the tank truck. In lieu of such tank truck sampling and testing, the carrier must demonstrate evidence of an oversight program for monitoring compliance with the requirements of this part relating to the transport or storage of the fuel, fuel additive, or regulated blendstock by tank truck, such as appropriate guidance to drivers regarding compliance with the applicable per-gallon standards and PTD requirements, and the periodic review of records received in the ordinary course of business concerning gasoline quality and delivery.
(e) In addition to the defenses provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, in any case in which an oxygenate blender, distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, or WPC would be in violation under § 1090.1715 as a result of gasoline that contains between 9 and 10 percent ethanol (by volume) but exceeds the applicable standard by more than 1.0 psi, the oxygenate blender, distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, or WPC will not be deemed in violation if such person can demonstrate, by showing receipt of a certification from the facility from which the gasoline was received or other evidence acceptable to EPA, all the following:
(1) The gasoline portion of the blend complies with the applicable RVP standard in § 1090.215.
(2) The ethanol portion of the blend does not exceed 10 percent (by volume).
(3) No additional alcohol or other additive has been added to increase the RVP of the ethanol portion of the blend.
(4) In the case of a violation alleged against an oxygenate blender, distributor, reseller, or carrier, if the demonstration required by paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section is made by a certification, it must be supported by evidence that the criteria in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section have been met, such as an oversight program conducted by or on behalf of the oxygenate blender, distributor, reseller, or carrier alleged to be in violation, which includes periodic sampling and testing of the gasoline or monitoring the volatility and ethanol content of the gasoline. Such certification will be deemed sufficient evidence of compliance provided it is not contradicted by specific evidence, such as testing results, and provided that the party has no other reasonable basis to believe that the facts stated in the certification are inaccurate. In the case of a violation alleged against a retail outlet or WPC facility, such certification will be deemed an adequate defense for the retailer or WPC, provided that the retailer or WPC is able to show certificates for all the gasoline contained in the storage tank found in violation, and, provided that the retailer or WPC has no reasonable basis to believe that the facts stated in the certifications are inaccurate.