Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Pursuant to
FIFRA's Data-Sharing Provisions

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Cheminova A/S v. Griffin LLC, 182 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2002), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the respondent's motion to dismiss and entered judgment on behalf of the applicant. Following successful binding arbitration of its dispute regarding a competitor's use of its data, and pursuant to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act's (FIFRA) data-sharing provisions, the applicant, a chemical manufacturer, sought to enforce the arbitration award. The competitor motioned the court to dismiss the action on the grounds that FIFRA failed to provide authority for judicial enforcement of FIFRA arbitration awards.

Background

In 1996, respondent Griffin applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for registrations to sell pesticides containing malathion. Id. at 70. Rather than conducting its own research in support of the application, Griffin used FIFRA's data-sharing provision, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(F), submitted by applicant Cheminova without permission. Id. Griffin offered to compensate Cheminova for use of the research data, and it notified the EPA of the same. Id. at 71. In 1998, Griffin received its registrations from the EPA and began selling malathion. Id. After the parties failed to reach an agreement regarding compensation, Cheminova requested binding arbitration. Id. Both parties participated in the binding arbitration proceedings, and after considering the evidence presented, the arbitration panel entered a final award on June 29, 2001, directing Griffin to pay to Cheminova: (1) $13,264,090 by August 15, 2001; (2) interest through the earlier of August 15, 2001 or the date of payment; and (3) interest after August 15 for any amount outstanding. Id. On October 15, 2001, Cheminova applied to the instant court for confirmation of the final arbitration award. Id.

Arguments

Griffin motioned to dismiss the confirmation proceedings, arguing that neither federal statute nor the United States Constitution permits summary judicial enforcement of arbitration awards under FIFRA because the statute provides only an administrative remedy for a registrant's failure to comply with an award. Id. at 71-72.

Cheminova argued that FIFRA provides the necessary authority to confirm the arbitration award, and that there was no constitutional impediment to judicial enforcement. Id. at 72.

Analysis and Holdings

To register their products with the EPA prior to sale or distribution, pesticide manufacturers can either: (1) submit their own test data, showing that the pesticide will not have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; or (2) pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(F), cite data that appear in public literature or that previously had been submitted to the Administrator. Id. When utilizing the second option, the manufacturer must offer to compensate the source of the data to the extent required by required by FIFRA § 3(c)(1)(D), and notify the EPA of the same before the EPA can consider the information in conjunction with a pesticide registration application. Id. If an agreement cannot be reached between the two parties, either party may initiate binding arbitration proceedings. Id.

Although Griffin's argument, that FIFRA provided only an administrative remedy for a registrant's failure to comply with an arbitration award, was a question of first impression for the court, it held: "In light of FIFRA's unambiguous language and because judicial enforcement is necessary to effectuate the statute's express goals, it must be concluded that FIFRA confers jurisdiction on the judiciary to enforce arbitration awards." Id. at 73. For this reason, the court denied Griffin's motion to dismiss, and enforced the arbitration award.

The case was decided on January 22, 2002.