In that this regulation was not applied to Respondent, the fact that this provision was not included in Respondent's permit until 1997 is irrelevant. Finally, Respondent's argument that the Accelerated Decision Order incorporates two inconsistent interpretations of the reporting requirements is difficult to understand. Region III's letter did not represent a second, inconsistent, interpretation of the rule, but rather served effectively to limit the Region's capacity to seek enforcement to those entities that supplied information that did not satisfy the minimum standards set out in the letter. Moreover, as Complainant points out, Respondent's submissions did not satisfy even the lower requirements set out in Region III's letter and Complainant has asserted violations only where Respondent did not satisfy these minimum data reporting requirements. This permit was administratively continued pursuant to condition 5 on page 17 of the permit.
Courts frequently look to the preamble to a final rule when construing the meaning of a rule.
See, Nat'l Mining Assoc., et al. See also id .