ELR Citation: ELR 20454
No(s). 01-02139 (ESH) (D.D.C. Jan 22, 2002)

The court holds that an arbitration award under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requiring a pesticide company to compensate a prior registrant for the use of its data is judicially enforceable. Instead of submitting its own data to support its registration application, the pesticide company used the prior registrant's data pursuant to FIFRA §3(c)(1)(F). The company offered to compensate the prior registrant for the data, but because the parties could not agree on the amount owed, they entered into arbitration. After an arbitration panel entered the final award, the prior registrant sought judicial confirmation of the award. The pesticide company filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the judiciary lacks jurisdiction to enforce arbitration awards under FIFRA.

The court first holds that the plain meaning of FIFRA §3(c)(1)(F) and the arbitration rules promulgated thereunder compel the conclusion that arbitration awards are judicially enforceable. FIFRA provides for "binding arbitration" to effectuate the right to compensation that arises when a follow-on registrant benefits from the use of the data provided to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by a prior registrant. Without recourse to judicial enforcement of the arbitration award, the original registrant's rights would be limited to cancellation, not compensation, as provided for by Congress. Therefore, if the phrase "binding arbitration" is not given its usual meaning, i.e., that the award is enforceable in court, FIFRA's data-compensation scheme would be rendered meaningless. Likewise, the court holds that the pesticide company's due process and ripeness challenges are without merit. The court, therefore, confirms the award.

[Counsel not available at this printing.]

Huvelle, J.