the DCI's monitoring requirements preclude EPA from labelling them as "additional data” under 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Hereafter "Plaintiffs’ SJ”) at 18-19. 13 . EPA SJ at 25. 14 . See id. at 25-26 referring to the House Committee Report H.R.Rep. No. 400, 100th Cong. 1st Sess. at 9-10 (1987), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1984, pp. 671, 677 ("It is the understanding of the Committee that the EPA, under the authority of FIFRA, presently has the authority to require registrants of antifouling paints to undertake or finance environmental monitoring programs. The Committee in , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (<HOLDING>) 27 . See J.A. 256, 436. 28 . See Chisholm v.
recognizing the governments interest including    the fiscal and administrative burdens involved holding that this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative fact finder who heard the testimony and was in a position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses because evidence is weighed by the administrative agency and not by the courts holding that the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail must be considered in determining what due process requires holding that court review of due process challenges require consideration of three factors 1 the private interest that will be affected by the official action 2 the fairness and reliability of the existing pretermination procedures and the probable value if any of additional or substitute procedural safeguards and 3 the public interest including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court