Opinion ID: 3050124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: e., “1332214 Asbestos”

Text: UNITED STATES v. W. R. GRACE 12687 known that their mining, milling, and distribution activities risked the release of asbestos into the ambient air. In light of the clear statutory language, including § 7412(b)’s incorporation by reference of the CAS Registry asbestos definition, and defendants’ knowledge of the industrial chemicals field, the district court erred in misdefining “asbestos” as used in the criminal statute and in invoking the rule of lenity. See Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 138 (1998) (“The rule of lenity applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be derived, . . . we can make no more than a guess as to what Congress intended.”) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266 (1997) (The “rule of lenity[ ] ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply [the statute] only to conduct clearly covered.”). The district court’s conclusion that ambiguity exists simply because of the existence of two oversight structures — a civil regulatory structure and a criminal enforcement provision — that use different definitions of the term “asbestos” is erroneous. As we determined in United States v. Hagberg, 207 F.3d 569, 573 (9th Cir. 2000), Congress validly may create multiple enforcement mechanisms that each draw on different definitions for the same term or phrase. In Hagberg, defendant was indicted for allegedly dumping sewage along a public road in violation of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(c)(2), 1345(e). Hagberg at 570. Moving to dismiss the indictment, Hagberg argued that his actions did not fit within the statutory definition of the crime because the material he dumped was not “sewage sludge” as defined by the regulations for permitting waste disposal. Id. at 571. Accepting Hagberg’s argument, the district court dismissed the indictment. The government appealed. Id. We reversed because the district court improperly had conflated the regulatory and direct enforcement provisions of the Clean Water Act, and the relevant definition — supplied by the direct enforcement provision — covered the material dumped by 12688 UNITED STATES v. W. R. GRACE defendant. Id. at 571-72, 575. We explained that “some terms found in the [direct enforcement provision] are defined differently when used in the context of [the civil permitting] regulations.” Id. at 572. Like the Clean Water Act provisions at issue in Hagberg, the Clean Air Act creates multiple enforcement mechanisms: a civil regulatory structure and a direct enforcement mechanism. In the instant case, as in Hagberg, defendants are charged with violating the directly enforceable provision of the statute that pulls its definitions from a separate provision than does the regulatory provision. The civil regulatory system draws its definition of asbestos from 40 C.F.R. § 61.141, the knowing endangerment provision from 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b). See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7412(a)(6); 7413(c)(5)(A). The civil regulatory system regulates major sources of hazardous air pollutants, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(c)-(g), and therefore understandably focuses on a subset of asbestifom minerals deemed to have commercial potential; market forces preclude commercially non-viable species of asbestos from becoming major sources of pollution from asbestos mills and mines and other covered sources. The direct enforcement mechanism created in 42 U.S.C. § 7413 focuses on risks to health. Therefore it provides oversight of release of hazardous pollutants whether or not they come from major sources of pollution. We defer to Congress’s decision to create two enforcement structures and hold the district court’s conflation of the two to be error. [8] In sum, the district court improperly limited the term “asbestos” to the six minerals covered by the civil regulations. Asbestos is adequately defined as a term and need not include mineral-by-mineral classifications to provide notice of its hazardous nature, particularly to these knowledgeable defendants. Accordingly, we reverse the order limiting evidence to that fitting within the civil regulations. UNITED STATES v. W. R. GRACE 12689