notice of the Department’s interpretation. Mr. Richter founded Executive in response to changes he observed in Colorado’s universal waste regulations, and while Mr. Richter and Mr. Olson worked at Executive, the company participated in a generator assistance program through which the Department provided information to assist Executive with understanding and complying with those universal waste regulations. The Department provided electronic waste recyclers like the defendants with clear and unambiguous notice that it interpreted Part 273.2(f)(3)’s definition of waste to include the original intended purpose provision when it published the Guidance Document in 2004, well before this enforcement action. Compare United States v. Norris, 39 Fed.Appx. 361, 364 (7th Cir.2002) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>), with Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., 736
holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation holding that an infringement on the defendants fundamental due process right in the form of a comment on the defendants silence by the prosecution did not rise to level of plain error holding that an agency form that defined the level of disclosure required under a regulation was enforceable against a criminal defendant where it plainly and consistently notified defendants of the laws specific requirements holding that a secretarys interpretation of a departments regulation is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant