Premise: EPA has considered numerous regulatory alternatives to the final provisions of the rule, which are discussed in both the preamble to the final rule and the Regulatory Impact Analysis, but has determined that the requirements expressed in the final rule constitute the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that would meet the mandate of section 206(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Hypothesis: EPA has not considered any numerous regulatory alternatives to the final provisions of the rule.
Relation: contradiction