With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". relevant statute, the record here reflects other considerations that demonstrate the defendants had fair notice. Mr. Richter and Mr. Olson were members of a specialized and technical field: electronic waste recyclers operating in Colorado. Because this is a highly regulated industry, it is fair to charge defendants with awareness that Colorado’s waste program had to be at least as stringent as EPA’s RCRA regulations, and that the federal regulations included the original intended purpose requirement. See 42 U.S.C. § 6926(b); 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.1, 261.2, 261.20. Thus, the defendants were on notice that an interpretation harmonizing the two regulatory schemes was reasonable, and indeed likely to be enforced against them. Cf. United States v. Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275, 1289 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Charging the defendants with notice in this

A: holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance
B: holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict
C: holding that knowledgeable wastewater management professionals can be expected to understand the meaning of a disposal permit particularly in light of the context of the epas scheme for regulating wastewater
D: holding that a joint stock company cannot be a citizen of new york within the meaning of the statutes regulating jurisdiction unless it be a corporation
C.