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
holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act holding that case law from other circuits squarely precluded jurisdiction over preenforcement ruling under the clean air act 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 holding that the same standards apply for setting reasonable attorneys fees under the clean air acts fee shifting provision as under 42 usc  1988 holding the epa could regulate air pollutants under the clean air act solely on the basis of the pollutants risk to human health