With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the jury to convict without finding that defendants were aware of asbestos regulation. We review the district court’s jury instruction de novo, but will reverse only if the charge as a whole caused prejudice. See United States v. Bok, 156 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1998); United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 939 (2d Cir.1993). A person is criminally liable under the Clean Air Act if he “knowingly violates any requirement or prohibition of ... section 7412 of this title.” 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(1) (emphasis added). The phrase “knowingly violates” bespeaks “knowledge of facts and attendant circumstances that comprise a violation of the statute, not specific knowledge that one’s conduct is illegal.” Weintraub, 273 F.3d at 147; see also United States v. Buckley, 934 F.2d 84, 88 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Under this standard, because “no one can

A: holding that case law from other circuits squarely precluded jurisdiction over preenforcement ruling under the clean air act
B: holding in a case involving the clean air act asbestos workpractice standards that knowingly violates does not require knowledge of the illegality of ones conduct
C: holding that the same standards apply for setting reasonable attorneys fees under the clean air acts fee shifting provision as under 42 usc  1988
D: holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act
B.