N.-J.,  I.F.R. 1401-]450
Issued February  1975
 UNITED  STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         ENFORCEMENT. AND GENERAL COUNSEL
          OFFICE OF  GENERAL  ENFORCEMENT
          PESTICIDES  ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
      NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDIR THE FEDERAL
    INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT
                     Nos. 1401-1450
    Notices  of Judgment  report  cases involving seizure actions
taken against products alleged to be in violation, and criminal and
civil actions taken against firms or individuals charged to be respon-
sible for violations. The following Notices of Judgment are approved
for publication as provided in Section 16(d) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 136n).
Alan G. Kirk  I!
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and  General Counsel

-------
1401. In Re: R. M. Hollingshead Corp., EPA Region HI, April 22,
     1974. (I.F.&R. No. II-25C, I.D. No. 69501.)

This was  a civil action charging  the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide Act, 7  U.S.C.
135a(a)(l);  135b;  136j(a)(l)(E); and  136(q)(2)(A).  The  action
pertained to a shipment made on  January 16, 1973, from New York,
New York, to Honolulu, Hawaii.  The pesticide involved was GLO-
LITE TORCH FUEL CONTAINS QTRONELLA;  charges included
nonregistration  and  misbranding—lack of  adequate  ingredient
statement on labels.

The respondent  signed a  Consent Agreement.  The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $600.00.
1402. In Re: J. L. Hoffmen & Co., Inc., EPA Region III, May 17,
     1974. (I.F.&R. Nos; III-28C and I1I-43C, I.D. Nos. 105152,
     105153,105154,105156,105158,105159, and 104525.)

This was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide Act,  7  U.S.C.
135a(a)(l);   135b;   136j(a)(l)(E);    136(q)(l)(G);    136(q)(l)(F);
136(q)(l)(A); 136(q)(2)(C)(iii);  135a(a)(l); and 136(c)(l). The action
pertained  to products held for distribution or sale on October 23,
1973, at J. L Hoffman & Co., Inc., Allentown, Pennsylvania. The
pesticides  involved were HOFFMAN'S ROOST PAINT, CHLORINE
TYPE LIQ. BACTERICIDE, HOUSEHOLD FLY SPRAY, LIQUID 2,4-
D, 35 TECH. CHLORDANE SURFACE  INSECTICIDE, S-O-BAC
GERM. -DETERGENT,  and HOFFMAN'S DISFECTSDE COEF. 6;
charges included nonregistration, composition differed from that re-
presented  in  connection  with  its registration,  adulteration,  and
misbranding—strength or purity fell below the professed standard of
quality as expressed on  its labeling, lack of adequate warning or
caution statement on labels, and lack of adequate directions for use
on labels.

The  respondent  signed  a Consent Agreement.  The Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $300.00.

                            886

-------
1403. In Re: Dickler Chem. Labs, Inc., EPA Region III,. June 3,
     1974.  (I.F.&R. No.  III-29C, I.D.  Nos. 104287,  104288,
     104289, 104290, 104291, 104292,104293, 104294, 104295
     and 104296.)

This was a civil action  charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide Act,  7  U.S.C.
135ata)(l); 135b;  136j(a)(l)(E); 136(q)(l)(G); 136(q)(2)(A); 135(O);
and 135a(a)(l). The action pertained to shipments made on June 13,
July 30, August 7 and 30, and October 1, 1973, from Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, to Landover, Maryland. The pesticides involved were
GERM. CLEANER CONCENTRATE, SEWATE SOLV, ALGICIDE
LIQUID, GLYCOL SPRAY, CONCENTRATE  BOWL  CLEANER,
FOGACIDE,  PINE ODOR, FLY & ROACH KILLER, SABRA  WEED
KILLER, and SABRA PINE ODOR; charges included nonregistra-
tion, claims made for the  product differed  in substance  from the
representations  made  in  connection  with  its  registration,  and
misbranding—lack of adequate warning or  caution statement and
lack of adequate ingredient statement on labels.

The  respondent signed  a  Consent  Agreement.  The  Final  Order
assessed a civil  penalty of $2000.00.
1404. In Re: E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., EPA Region III,
     August 23, 1974. (I.F.&R. No. III-34C, I.D. Nos. 90703 and
     90704.)

This was ^ civil action in which the respondent was charged with vio-
lating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act, 7
U.S.C.  135a(a)(l);  135b;  136j(a)(l)(E}; and 136(q)(2)(A). The action
pertained to a shipment made on May 17, 1973, from Belle, West
Virginia,  to  Eakley,  Oklahoma.  The  pesticides  involved were
VYDATE   L INSECTICIDE/NEMATICIDE   and   VYDATE  G
INSECTICIDE/NEMATICIDE  10% GRANULES; charges  include
nonregistration  and  misbranding—lack  of  adequate  ingredient
statement on labels.
                           887

-------
The  respondent  signed a Consent Agreement. The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $3,200.00.
1405. In Re: Mollen Chemical Co., EPA Region III, August 23,
     1974.  (I.F.&R. No. III-31C, I.D. Nos. 105207 and 105208.)

This was a civil action  charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7  U.S.C.
135a(a)(l); 135b; 136j(a)(l)(E); 136(q)(l)(G); and 136(q)(l)(A).  The
action pertained to products held for distribution or sale on October
18, 1973, at Mollen Chemical Co.,  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The
pesticides involved were MOLADINE ODORLESS DISINFECTANT
and MOLOPINE PINE ODOR DISINFECTANT; charges  include
nonregistration, claims and directions for use differed  in substance
from the representations made in connection with its registration  and
misbranding—lack of adequate warning or caution statement on
labels and labels bore false or misleading claims.

The respondent  signed a  Consent Agreement.  The   Final order
assessed a civil penalty of $2,000.00.
1406. In Re: Pen-Kote Paint Company, EPA Region IV, March
     26,1974. (I.F.&R. No. IV-9C, I.D. No. 88455.)

This civil penalty proceeding was settled by hearing. The following is
Administrative Law Judge Bernard D. Levinson's Initial Decision.

Preliminary Statement

     This  is  a  proceeding  under section  14(a)  ot  the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended in 1972
(hereinafter FIFRA 1972), 7 U.S.C. 136, et seq., for the assessment of
civil penalty for violations of the Act. A complaint  //  (designated
"Penalty Assessment and  Notice of Opportunity for Hearing"), was
issued  against  the  respondent  on September 25, 1973, by  the
Director, Enforcement Division, Region IV, Environmental Protection
Agency.

                            888

-------
     The complaint alleges, in substance, that on January 18 and Fe-
bruary 1, 1973, the respondent delivered for shipment, the pesticide,
PEN-KOTE COPPER  NAPHTHENATE PRESERVATE  FOR WOOD-
CANVAS-ROPE  (hereinafter  CNP), from  Pensacola,  Florida, to
Mobile, Alabama, and that said pesticide was not in compliance with
the provisions of the Act in that  it was not registered and was
misbranded. 2/ A civil penalty of $1,250 was proposed  to be
assessed.  The respondent  filed  a  request for hearing  and  was
furnished with a  copy of the  Interim  Rules of Practice governing
proceedings of this type (38 F.R. 26360, September 20, 1973).

The respondent filed an answer to the complaint dated October 26,
1973,  in which it admitted the charges. With  respect to the  non-
registration charge, the respondent alleged that it had no knowledge
of the Act and did not act with intention to violate. It further alleged
that the product was now properly registered. As to the misbranding
charge, the respondent alleged that this was a  minor violation and
was corrected with very few changes in the label. The answer also
contends that the amount of the fine, which the attorney for EPA has
agreed to reduce to $1,000,  is  unreasonable and unjustified and
would put a severe financial strain on the company.

     Settlement negotiations between the parties were not successful
(see Rules of  Practice,  section 168.35), and  pursuant to section
168.36(d) of the Rules of Practice, we corresponded with the parties
for the purpose  of  accomplishing  some of the objectives  of  a
prehearing conference.  Since  the violations were  admitted, the
correspondence related to the appropriateness of the penalty.

     A hearing was held in Pensacola, Florida, on February 21, 1974.
EPA was represented by James H. Sargent, Esq., Acting Chief, Legal
Support Branch, Region IV. Three witnesses testified on  behalf of
EPA.  Mr.  Bob  Crumpton,  president  of  respondent  company,
appeared for and testified on its behalf.

     At the  hearing, counsel for EPA stated that the misbranding
charge was based  on a minor  violation,  and  while he was not
withdrawing this charge, he was not now seeking to assess a penalty
thereon. In the light of this statement and in the circumstances, we are

                             889

-------
of .the, view that any. consideration of the misbranding charge would
be purely academic and we are eliminating it from our consideration
of this case.

     At the conclusion of the taking of evidence, the parties waived
their right to file proposed findings of fact, conclusions, a proposed
order, and brief (see Rules of Practice, section 168.48).

     In view of the relatively simple nature of the case, we did not
require them to do so.

Findings of Fact

1. The respondent, Pen-Kote Paint Company,  Inc., is a corporation
with a  place  of business  in  Pensacola,  Florida. The company  is
engaged primarily  in the manufacture and distribution of paints of
various  types. The company  also  manufactures  and  distributes  a
product which it calls Pen-Kote Copper Naphthenate  Preservate
(CNP). The company purchases copper naphthenate and petroleu:
distillate separately and  mixes them to make the finished product
which it sells. The company has been marketing this product since the
latter part of 1971  or early 1972.

2, The product CNP is represented as a preservative for wood, fabric,
and rope and its label represents that its use will arrest the action of
decay, rot fungi, termites, and other wood infesting insects. CNP is a
pesticide within the meaning  of  the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act, as amended (FIFRA 1972). The respondent does
not manufacture  or  distribute  any other product  that  requires
registration under FIFRA.

3. The product CNP, at the times here material, was not registered as
required by the provisions of FIFRA 1972 and section 4 of the Federal
Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 973).

4. On January 18, 1973, and February 1, 1973, the  respondent de-
livered  for shipment  and  shipped  quantities  of the unregistered
product CNP from Pensacola, Florida, to Mobile, Alabama.,
                             890

-------
 5. On April 24, 1973, the Regional Office of EPA in Atlanta, issued a
 citation to respondent advising it of the violations that had been dis-
 covered and giving it an opportunity to express its views thereon in
 writing or in person, or both. Enclosed with the citation were forms for
 applying for registration of a pesticide. The  respondent  applied to
 EPA for registration of CN P on May 8, 1973.

 6. EPA registered the product in due course. Certain cautionary and
 environmental  protection  statements,  which did  not  previously
 appear on the label of the product, were required before registration
 was approved.

 7. The distribution and use of the unregistered product, without the
 required  statements  referred to  in  the  previous  finding, posed
 hazards  which  could  have  adverse  effects  on  man  and  the
 environment.

 8. The respondent's gross  sales  for the year 1973, were approxi-
 mately $188,000. A financial statement from respondent's account-
 ant for the year ending February 28, 1973, shows retained earnings
 of approximately  $39,000,  including approximately $7,319 net
 income for the year ending February 28, 1973.

 9. The respondent's violations were not intentional. The respondent
 has no prior history of violations of FIFRA 1972 or FIFRA 1947.

 10. The assessment of a civil penalty of $500, while it will temporarily
 inconvenience respondent and affect its cash  flow, will not effect its
 ability to continue in business.

 Conclusions

     On  two  occasions the  respondent shipped a pesticide  from
 Pensacola,  Florida,  to Mobile, Alabama; said pesticide was not re-
 gistered as  required by  the Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide,  and
 Rodenticide Act, as amended; the respondent violated section 12(a)
 of said Act, 7 U.S.C. 136j(ay, and  is subject to the assessment of a
civil penalty under section 14(a) of said Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 l(a); taking
 into consideration  the size of respondent's business,  the effect on

                             891

-------
respondent's ability to continue in business, and the gravity of the
violation, a penalty assessment of $500 is appropriate.

     This is the first case in any of the Regions of EPA in which an
Initial Decision is being issued  under the civil penalty  provision of
FIFRA  1972. We consider it  appropriate  to comment briefly on
several subjects of general interest in this type of case.

     Federal registration of pesticides (previously called economic
poisons) was first required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act of 1947 (FIFRA  1947). Among the purposes of
registration were to provide additional protection to the public; to
assist manufacturers in complying  with the  provision of the Act; to
bring to the attention of enforcement officials the formula, label, and
claims made with respect to pesticides before they are offered to the
public; to prevent false and misleading claims; to prevent worthless
articles from being marketed, and to provide a means of obtaining
speedy remedial action if such articles are marketed. "Thus, a great
measure of protection can be  accorded directly through the pre-
vention  of injury, rather than haying to resort solely to imposition of
sanctions  for  violations  after damage or  injury has  been done.
Registration will also  afford manufacturers an opportunity  to elim-
inate many objectionable features from their labels prior to placing
an economic poison on the market." H.R. Rep. No. 313, 80th Cong.,
IstSess., 1947, pp. 2-3.

     The purpose of FIFRA 1972. was to  provide  "for the more
complete  regulation  of  pesticides  in order to provide  for  the
protection of man and his environment and the enhancement of the
beauty of the world around him." S. Rep. No. 92-838, 92d Cong., 2d
Sess.(1972),p.3.

     The requirement for registration of pesticides was carried over
from FIFRA 1947 into the amended  law and the procedures and
conditions for registration were amended. 3/

     The legislative mechanism used  to amend FIFRA 1947  was the
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 (FEPCA). Under
sections 4(b) and 4(c)(l) of FEPCA, the registration requirements and

                             892

-------
regulations of FIFRA 1947, are to remain in effect until superseded by
the 1972 amendments and regulations thereunder.
New registration regulations are required to be promulgated within
two years after October 21, 1972, and  such regulations as of this
date have  not  been  promulgated. The registration requirements of
FIFRA 1947 are still in effect.

     The enforcement program, in individual cases, for the assess-
ment of civil  penalties under section 14(a) of FIFRA 1972, from the
outset, has been handled by the Regional Offices of EPA, of which
there  are  ten  throughout the country.  The  overall policies  and
procedures to be followed by the various  Regions are established by
the Pesticides Enforcement Division, Office of General Counsel and
Enforcement, at the central office in Washington,  D.C. The Rules of
Practice are applicable to all cases brought for assessment and civil
penalties.

    The complaints for civil penalty assessments are issued in the Re-
gions  and  the  proposed civil penalty  in each complaint is  set by
enforcement officials in the Regions. In hopes of assuring that there
would  be uniformity as to the  amount of penalty assessed in the
various Regions for violations of comparable gravity, the Pesticides
Enforcement Division prepared a Civil Penalty Assessment Schedule
4/\o be used in all Regions. This schedule  was prepared by personnel
in the Pesticides  Enforcement Division  in  collaboration with in-
dividuals in the Regions who were involved in the  program. Most of
the Pesticides Enforcement Division personnel who worked  on the
project had had experience in the pesticide enforcement program in
EPA and  in  the Department  of Agriculture before  the  pesticide
program  was transferred to EPA on December 20, 1970, under Re-
organization  Plan  No.  3. Although there was no  civil penalty pro-
vision in FIFRA prior to October 21, 1972, the experience that these
individuals had  in developing, preparing, and referring criminal cases
for prosecution  under FIFRA, was readily transferable  to the civil
penalty program.

     Under section 14(a)(l) of FIFRA 1972, the maximum civil penalty
that can  be imposed  on a  registrant,  commercial  applicator,
wholesaler, dealer, retailer, or other distributor for violations of the

                             893

-------
Act is $5,000 for each  offense. In determining the amount of civil
penalty,  the  statute requires  the Agency  to  consider the appro-
priateness of the penalty to the size of respondent's business, the
effect on his  ability to continue in business, and the gravity of the
violation.

     In  setting up  the  schedule, the  Agency  gave  primary  con-
sideration to two factors — the gravity of the violation and the size
of the respondent's business. The gravity factor was considered to be
the more important. In proposing the amount of the penalty, the third
factor to  be considered — the effect on respondent's  ability to
continue in business — was considered to have some relationship to
the size of respondent's business. At the Regional level, the amount of
the penalty to be assessed is negotiable. 5/ Each complaint that is
issued advises respondent that he has an opportunity to confer with
Regional personnel regarding the appropriateness of the penalty, as
well  as  the alleged violation.  A respondent  may  also contest the
appropriateness of the penalty and the  violation charges at a formal
hearing, such as was held in this case. Thus, a respondent has ample
opportunity to present  evidence and arguments on the  matter of
violations and on all factors that must be considered in determining
the appropriateness of the penalty.

     The Civil Penalty Assessment Schedule set up three categories of
sizes of business based on annual gross sales. The size categories are:
I - less than $200,000; II - between $200,000 and $1,000,000; III -
over $1,000,000. The gravity of violations  run the  scale downward
from the serious knowing violations, and particulary those that would
have  serious  adverse  effects  on  humans, to minor misbranding
violations. The jcale of penalties runs from  the maximum of $5,000
for a respondent in size category III for the  most serious violation to
minor misbranding violations which, standing alone, are deemed not
serious enough to warrant assessment of a civil penalty. The minimum
penalty on the schedule is $250 for a respondent in size category I for
a violation that is not of a high degree of gravity.

     It is undoubtedly  proper  and desirable  for  the enforcement
officials of the pesticide program to adhere to or be guided by the
Civil Penalty Assessment Schedule. However, we are of the view that

                             894

-------
the Administrative Law Judge who hears the case is not bound by the
schedule. Section 14(a)(3) of the Act, as we read it, contemplates an
administrative hearing not only on the matter of violations, but also
on the appropriateness of the penalty. The Administrative Law Judge,
after hearing the evidence, must make an independent judgment on
both of these factors. He may look to the schedule to learn the basis
on which  the enforcement officials  arrived at the amount of the
proposed  penalty. But,  the  evidence before  him may be different
from that which was before the enforcement officials or, if the same,
he may not agree with their evaluation of it, including their evaluation
of the  factors which must be considered in assessing the penalty.
Accordingly, if he finds  that there was  a violation,  he  may increase
(within  the limit set by the statute) or  decrease the amount of the pe-
nalty proposed by the enforcement officials.

     The amount of penalty assessed herein is less  than the amount
set forth in the  Civil Penalty Assessment Schedule.  However, in
deciding the amount of civil penalty that should be assessed, we have
given considerable weight to the following factors; respondent's vio-
lation  was not intentional;  respondent promptly applied for  reg-
istration  after the  non-registration  violation was brought to its
attention and the product was subsequently registered; respondent is
primarily in the paint business and the product in question is the only
pesticide in which it deals; lack of history of previous violations; and
the honest and forthright manner in which respondent's president and
only witness testified.

     The respondent  has  urged that his  conduct was not an in-
tentional or knowing violation. We have no reason to question his re-
presentations in  this  regard. However,  knowledge or intent are not
required elements in a violation for the  assessment of a civil penalty
under  section  14(a). In  statutes  that  are   designed  for social
betterment or for the welfare of the public (as in FIFRA), the Congress
has often authorized the imposition of penalties even though there is
no  intent to violate  and no awareness  of  wrongdoing.  U.S. v.
Dotterweich,  320 U.S. 277; U.S. y.Ba/inf,  258 U.S. 250. See  also
Morissetfev. U.S., 342 U.S. 246, 256.
                             895

-------
     It is to be observed that under section 14(b) of FIFRA 1972, a
criminal violation  is  not established unless the person  charged
"knowingly violates." Significantly, the word "knowingly" is omitted
in section 14(0), the civil penalty provision.

     While knowledge is not a essential element to establish a vio-
lation where a civil penalty is to be imposed, it is a factor that may
properly be taken  into consideration in evaluating the culpability of
the respondent as bearing on the gravity of the offense.

     Having considered  the entire record and based on the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions herein, it is proposed that the following order
be issued.

Final Order

     Pursuant to section  14(a)(l) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act, as amended, a civil penalty of $500 is assessed
against the respondent, Pen-Kote Paint Company, Inc., for violations
of said Act as set forth in the amended complaint dated September
25,1973.
                       Bernard D.  Levinson
                       Administrative Law Judge
March 26,  1974
 // This was an amended complaint to correct an error in the original
complaint.

2/ The misbranding allegation was failure of the label to bear the re-
quired  statement  of  net  weight  or measure.  7  U.S.C.  136
                             896

-------
3/ Among other things, the amended law requires registration of all
pesticides in the channels of U.S. trade whereas under the previous
law only pesticides in interstate  commerce were required to be
registered. Interstate shipments are involved in this case.

4/ The  Civil  Penalty Assessment  Schedule  was  introduced as an
exhibit at the hearing. We  have been  informed that it will be
published together with the final Rules of Practice.

5f Section  168.35(a) states that it is  Agency policy to encourage
settlement where it is consistent with the provisions and objectives of
the Act.
1407. In Re: Rigo Chemical Company, EPA Region IV, June 1,
     1974. (I.F.&R. No. IV-60C, I.D. No. 88589.)

This was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and  Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l)(E); 136(q)(l)(A}; and  136(c)(2). The action pertained to a
shipment made on July 17, 1973,  from  Nashville, Tennessee, to
Birmingham, Alabama. The pesticide involved was KILL KO SUGAR
BASE   FLY    BAIT;   charges    included   adulteration   and
misbranding—product was contaminated with an additional active
ingredient not declared in labeling.

The respondent  signed a Consent Agreement.  The Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $500.00.
1408. In Re: Chem-Clean, Inc., EPA Region IV, June 3, 1974.
     (I.F.&R. No. IV-63C, I.D. No. 94694.)
                    r
This was a civil action charging the respqndent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l}(E); 136(c)(l); and 136(q)(2){C)(iii). The action pertained to a
product held for distribution or sale on September 12, 1973,  at
Chem-Clean Inc., Greenville, South Carolina. The pesticide involved
was CHEM-CLEAN'S GERM-X; charges included adulteration and

                            897

-------
misbranding—strength or purity fell below the professed standard of
quality as expressed on its labeling and lack of a statement of net
weight or measure of content on labeling.

The  respondent  signed a  Consent Agreement.  The Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $500.00.
1409. In Re: General Blending Company, Inc., EPA Region IV,
     June 3,1974. (I.F.&R. No. IV-22C, I.D. No. 94886.).

This was a civil action charging the  respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l}(E);  136(c)(l); and 136(q)(l)(A). The action pertained to a
product held for distribution or sale on July 31, 1973, at General
Blending Company, Jacksonville, Florida. The pesticide involved was
GATE   PINE,  PINE  ODOR  DISINFECTANT; charges  included
adulteration and misbranding—strength or purity fell below the pro-
fessed standard of quality as expressed on its labeling.

The respondent signed a  Consent  Agreement. The Final  Order
assessed a civil penalty of $50.00.
1410. In Re: Kentucky By-Products Corporation, EPA Region IV,
     June 3,1974. (I.F.&R. No. IV-32C, I.D. No. 95588.)

This was a  civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide  Act, 7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l)(E); 136(q)(l)(A); and 136(c)(l). The action pertained to a
product held for distribution or sale on August 8, 1973, at Kentucky
By-Products Corp., Louisville, Kentucky. The pesticide involved was
KING K BAR-FLY BLOCK; charges included  adulteration and mis-
branding—strength or purity fell  below the professed standard of
quality as expressed on its labeling.

The respondent signed a  Consent Agreement. The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $300.00.
                             898

-------
1411. In Re: Tri-Chek, Inc., EPA Region IV, June 3,1974. (I.F.&R.
     No. IV-27C, I.D. No. 100036.)

This was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(l);  135b;  136j(a)(l}(E);  and   136(q)(l)(A).  The action
pertained  to a shipment made on  March 3,  1973, from Augusta,
Georgia,  to  Estil, South  Carolina.  The pesticide involved was
PEARSON'S MELON & PINE SEED PROTECTANT;  charges  in-
eluded nonregistration  and misbranding—labels bore a  false  or
misleading  registration  number  implying that  the  product was
registered.

The respondent  signed  a Consent Agreement.  The  Final Order
assessed a civil panelty of $600.00.
1412. In Re: Babco Chemical Co., Inc., EPA Region IV, July 8,
     1974. (I.F.&R. No. IV-24C, I.D. No. 94833.)

This was a civil action charging the respondent with  violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(l);  135b;  136(q)(l)(A);  and  136j(a)(l)(E).  The action
pertained  to a shipment  made on April 3, 1973, from Jacksonville,
Florida,  to Macon, Georgia. The  pesticide  involved was  BABCO
BUG   CHEK;   charges  included  nonregistration   and   mis-
branding—labels bore false safety claims and a false or misleading
registration number implying that the product was registered.

The respondent  signed  a Consent Agreement.  The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $ 1,500.00.
1413. In Re: Davis-Weil Mfg. Co., EPA Region IV, July 8,1974.
     (I.F.&R. No. IV-44C, I.D. No. 95605.)

This was  a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and  Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(1)(E); 136(c){l); and  136(q)(l)(A). The action pertained to a

                            899

-------
product held for distribution or sole on October 2, 1973, at Davis-
Weil  Mfg. Co.,  Memphis, Tennessee.  The  pesticide  involved was
DALOX DISINFECTANT BLEACH AND WASHING COMPOUND;
charges included adulteration and misbranding—strength or purity
fell below the professed  standard of quality as expressed on its
labeling.

The respondent  signed  a Consent Agreement. The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $300.00.
1414. In Re: Industrial Maintenance Corp., EPA Region IV, July
     9,1974. (I.F.&R. No. IV-5C, I.D. Nos. 94958 and 88250.)

This  was a civil action  charging the respondent with violating the
Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
135a(a)(l); 135b; 136j(a)(l)(E}; 136(q)(2)(C)(iii); and 136[q)m(A). The
action pertained to shipments made on December 27,1972, and Jan-
uary 9,1973, from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Prosperity and Paco-
let Mills, South Carolina. The pesticides involved were BA-105 and
ALGAECIDE D.O.;  charges  included  nonregistration  and  mis-
branding—lack of statement of net content on labels and labels bore
a false or misleading registration number implying that the product
was registered.

The  respondent signed  a  Consent Agreement.  The Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $1500.00.
1415. In Re: Chemical Processors, Inc, EPA Region IV, July 25,
     1974. (I.F.&R. No. IV-70C, I.D. No. 95027.)

This was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and  Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
136j(a}(l)(E); 136(q}(l)(A); and  136(c)(l). The action pertained to a
product held for distribution or sale on November 14,  1973, at
Chemical  Processors,  Inc., St.  Petersburg, Florida. The  pesticide
involved  was NEW!  IMPROVED SUN FRESH MILDEW MOTH
GAS; charges included adulteration and  misbranding—strength or

                            900

-------
purity fell .below the professed standard of quality as expressed on
labeling.

The respondent signed  a Consent  Agreement.  The Final  Order
assessed a civil penalty of $300.00.
1416. In Re: Edco Chemical Company, Inc.,  EPA  Region IV,
     August 19,1974. (I.F.&R. No. IV-73C, I.D. Nos. 94678 and
     94679.)

This was a civil action  charging the respondent  with violating the
Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide,  and Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l)(E);  136(q)(l)(G);   136(q}(2)(C)(iii);  136(q)(l)(C)(v); and
136(q)(l)(A). The action pertained to products held for distribution or
sale  on  August 10, 1973, at Edco Chemical Co.,  Inc., Columbia,
South  Carolina.  The  pesticides   involved  were  SEPTI-KLEEN
DISINFECTANT-CLEANER and EDCO DISTENE DISINFECTANT;
charges  included adulteration and  misbranding—strength or purity
fell below the  professed standard of quality as expressed on its
labeling, lack of adequate warning or caution statement on labels,
lack of net content statement on labels, and lack of assigned reg-
istration number on labels.

The  respondent signed  a Consent  Agreement.  The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $2,300.00.
1417. In Re: Progress Paint Manufacturing Company, Inc., EPA
     Region IV. (I.F.&R. No. IV-84C, I.D. No. 117179.)

This was  a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide  Act,  7 U.S.C.
135(a}(1). The action pertained to a shipment made on December 12,
1973, from Louisville, Kentucky, to Atlanta, Georgia. The pesticide
involved was GRAY SEAL SUPER CREOSOTE TITANIUM WHITE
SELF CLEANING; the charge was nonregistration.
                            901

-------
The respondent signed a  Consent Agreement. The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $1,680.00.

1418. In Re: Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, EPA Region
    IV, August 20,1974.  (I.F.&R. No. IV-91C, I.D. No. 116904.)

This was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l}(E); 136{q)(l)(A); and 136(c)(l). The action pertained to a
product  held for distribution or sale on February 15, 1974, at Kerr-
McGee  Chemical Corporation,  Jacksonville, Florida. The  pesticide
involved was FASCO  DE-KA-GO   PRUNING  COMPOUND;
charges  included misbranding and adulteration—strength or purity
fell below the professed standard of quality  as expressed on its
labeling.

The respondent signed a  Consent Agreement. The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $900.00.
1419. U.S. v. Florida Seed & Feed Company, U.S. District Court,
     Middle District of Florida, Criminal No. 73-7-CR-OC,
     March 7,1973. (I.F.&R. No. IV-40P, I.D. Nos. 87940,87941,
     87942, and 87943.)

This was a criminal action prepared by EPA Region IV charging the
defendant in a four count information with violating the Federal In-
secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l); 135b;
135a(a)(2)(d); and 40 CFR 62.6(f)  1972 ed. The action pertained to
shipments made on April 10 and 21 and March 24, 1972, from
Ocala, Florida, to Brunswick, Georgia. The pesticides involved were
GRO-TONE CHLOROPHENE BAIT, NEMAGON 50, and FUME-
KILL NEMAGON GRANULES;  charges included nonregistration
and  misbranding—labels failed to bear  the assigned registration
number.

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to all counts.

A fine of $100.00 was levied.

                            902

-------
1420. U.S. v. Echo! Chemical Formulators,  Inc.,  U.S. District
     Court, Middle  District of  Florida, Criminal  No. 73-15-
     CRPK, March  13,  1973. (I.F.&R. No.  IV-35P, I.D.  No.
     88368.)

This was a criminal action  prepared by EPA Region IV charging the
defendant in  a one count information with violating the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 135a(a}(1) and
135b. The action pertained to a shipment made on July 20, 1972,
from Lakeland, Florida, to Albany, Georgia. The pesticide involved
was  MICRONIZED  WETTABLE  SULPHUR;  the  charge  was
nonregistration.

The defendant enter a plea of guilty.

A fine of $500.00 was levied.
1421. U.S. v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, U.S. District
     Court, Middle District of Florida, Criminal No. 73-47-CR-J-
     T, March 15, 1973. (I.F.&R. No. IV-23P, I.D. Nos. 96585,
     84450, and 100202.)

This was a criminal action prepared by EPA Region IV charging the
defendant in a seven count information with violating the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C.  135a(a)(l);
135b; 135z(2)(d); 135a(a)(l); and 135a(a){5). The action pertained to
shipments made on March 19, June 22, and August 5, 1971, from
Jacksonville, Florida,  to  Brunswick and  Savannah, Georgia. The
pesticides  involved were  IDEAL BRAND CHLORDANE 10 DUST,
FUME-KILL  BRAND  NEMAGON  GRANULES,   and IDEAL
BRAND CHLOROPHENE BAIT; charges included nonregistration
and misbranding—lack of adequate precautionary statements, lack
of adequate directions for use, and labels bore a false or misleading
registration number implying that the product was registered.

The defendant entered a  plea of nolo  contendere to count four. The
remaining counts were dismissed.
                           903

-------
A fine of $400.00 was levied.
 1422. U.S. v. FHW Toxicology and Biology Laboratories, U.S.
     District Court, Middle District of Florida,  Criminal No.
     73-56-oil-Cr, May 15, 1973. (I.F.&R. No. IV-54P, I.D. No.
     100000.)

 This was a criminal action prepared by EPA Region IV charging the
 defendant in a five  count information with violating  the Federal
 Insecticide, Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C.  135a(a)(l);
 135(z)(2)(d);  135a(a)(5);  135{z)(2)(c);  135(z)(2)(e); 135(o);  135(z)(l);
 and 40 CFR  162.9 (1972 ed.) The action pertained  to a shipment
 made on June 27, 1972, from Winter Springs, Florida, to East Point,
 Georgia. The pesticide involved was C-73. FB-15; charges included
 nonregistration and  misbranding—lack of adequate  warning  or
 caution statement on labels, lack of adequate directions for use on
 labels and labels bore a false  or misleading  registration number
 implying that the product was registered.

 The defendant entered a plea of guilty to count 4.  The  remaining
 counts were dismissed.

 A fine of $500.00 was levied.
1423. U.S. v, U.S. Borax and Chemical Corporation, U.S. District
     Court,  Northern District of Mississippi, Criminal  No. CRE
     73-20, June 25,1973. (I.F.&R. No. IV-1 IP, I.D. No. 97429.)

This was a criminal action prepared by EPA Region IV charging the
defendant in a two  count information with violating the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,  7 U.S.C.  135a(a)(l);
135b; 135a(a)(5); and 135(z)(l). The action pertained  to a shipment
made on  June 29,  1971, from Columbus, Mississippi, to  Dallas,
Texas.  The   pesticide   involved  was   MONOBOR-CHLORATE
GRANULAR;    charges    included     nonregistration    and
misbranding—labels bore a false or misleading registration number
implying that the product was registered.

                            904

-------
The defendant entered a plea of guilty to both counts.

A fine of $100.00 was levied.
1424.  U.S. v. Pfister Chemical,  U.S.  District  Court,  Western
     District of North Carolina, Criminal No. C-CR-73-74, Jury
     2,1973. (I.F.&R. No. IV-52P, I.D. No. 88336.)

This was a criminal action prepared by EPA Region IV charging Jjfte
defendant in  a three  count information with violating the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l);
I35(z)(2)(d); 135a(a)(5); 135(z)(2)(e);  135(o); and 40 CFR 162.9 (1972
ed). The action pertained to a shipment made on August 28, ]972,
from Charlotte, North Carolina, to  Dalton, Georgia. The pesticide
involved was  TIN SAN; charges included nonregistration and mis-
branding—lack of  adequate  ingredient statement  and facie  of
adequate warning or caution statement on labels.

The defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to count two. The
remaining counts were dismissed.

A fine of $350.00 was levied.

1425.  U.S. v. Redd  Pest Control Company, Inc.  U.S. District
     Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Criminal  No. 73J-
     17(R), July 30, 1973. (I.F.&R. No. IV-31P, I.D. No. 87776.)

This was a criminal action prepared by EPA Region IV charging the
defendant in  a three  count information with violating the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 135a(a)U);
135b; 135a(a)(5); 135(z)(2)(c);and 135a(a)(2)(c). The action  pertained
to a  shipment made on May 3, 1972, from Jackson, Mississippi, to
Chatanooga,  Tennessee. The  pesticide involved was  REDD  MAN
RAT BAIT; charges included nonregistration and misbranding—lack
of directions for use and lack of statement of net weight or measure
of content on labels.

The defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to all counts.

                            905

-------
The Corporation was placed on inactive probation for six months with
imposition of the sentence being suspended.
 1426.  U.S.  v.  Pet Chemicals, Inc., Thomas  E. Duffey, and
     William R.  Coleman, U.S. District Court,  S.  District  of
     Florida, Criminal  No.  74-202-CR-PF,  April  29,  1974.
     (I.F.&R. No. 1399,1.D. Nos. 97359,97004 and 97005.)

 This was a criminal action charging the defendant  in a five count
 indictment with violating the  Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide, and
 Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 135a(o)(1); 135a(a}(2)(d);  135a(a)(5); and
 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2. The action pertained to  shipments  made  on
 February 25 and October 28, 1971, from Miami Springs, Florida, to
 Lithonia, Georgia, and San Antonio, Texas. The pesticides involved
 were HOLIDAY CHEW STOP FOR DOGS AND CATS, and
 HOLIDAY TICK STOP; charges included composition differed from
 that represented  in  connection with its  registration  and mis-
 branding—labels failed to bear  the assigned registration number.

 The firm entered a plea of no|o contendre. The U.S. Attorney filed an
 Order for Dismissal for Thomas Duffey and William Coleman.

 A fine of $2500.00 was levied against the firm.
1427. In Re: The Anderson Chemical Company, EPA Region V,
     June 27, 1974. (I.F.&R. No. V-076C, I.D. Nos. 94437 and
     94446.)

This was a civil action in which the respondent was charged with
violating the  Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,  and Rodenticide Act, 7
U.S.C  136j(a)(l){E) and  136(q)(l)(G).  The action  pertained  to
products held for distribution or sale on October 17,  1973, at the
Anderson Chemical Company, Litchfield, Minnesota. The pesticides
involved were AN-CARE 675 STAPH MINUS and ANDERSON'S
AN-CARE    INDUSTRIAL   AEROSOL;   the   charge   was
misbranding—lack of  adequate directions for use  and  lack of
adequate cautionary statements on labels.

                           906

-------
The  respondent signed a  Consent Agreement. The- Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $4,500,00.
1428. U.S. V. Sterling Drug, Inc., U.S. District Court, Northern
     District of Ohio, Criminal No. CR 73-135, July 26, 1974.
     (I.F.&R.  No. 1363,  I.D. Nos. 72760, 73184, 73706,  and
     78835.)

This was a criminal action charging the defendant in a five count
information with violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(5); 135(z)(l);  135(z)(2)(d); and
135f. The action pertained to shipments made on October 2 and 25,
1968; December 16, 1968; and July 21, 1969, from Toledo, Ohio, to
Buffalo, New  York;  Pocatello,  Idaho;  Omaha,  Nebraska;  and
Vancouver, Washington. The  pesticides involved  were ROCCAL
BRAND SANITIZING AGENT and BARRAGE CONCENTRATED
BOWL CLEANSE; charges included claims differed from  those made
in connection with registration and misbranding—product was not
effective when  used  as directed and lack of adequate warning
statements on labels.

The defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to counts  I and II.
The remaining counts were dismissed.

A fine of $500.00 was levied.
1429. U.S. v. 7632 four-ounce blocks, more or less, of a product
     labeled  in  part "GRACE-LEE  PERFUMED DEODORANT
     BLOCS." U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, August
     1,1974. (I.F.&R. No. 1355,1.D. No. 87223.)

This was a seizure action charging the product with being in violation
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(l);  135b;  135a(a}(5); 135(z)(2)(e); and 135(o). The action
pertained  to  a shipment  made  on  July  26,  1972, by  Hysan
Corporation, from Chicago,  Illinois,  to Minneapolis,  Minnesota.
                           907

-------
 Charges  included   nonregistration  and  misbranding—lack  of
 adequate ingredient statement on labels.

 The Decree of Condemnation authorized release of the product after
 relabeling to remove from purview of the Act.
 1430. EPA v. Dallas Laboratories, EPA Region VI, November
     26,1973. (I.F.&R. No. VI-9C, I.D. No. 90568.)

 This was a civil  action charging the respondent with violating the
 Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide Act,  7 U.S.C.
 136j{a){l)(E);  136(q)(l){A}; and  136(c)(l). The action pertained to a
 product held for distribution or sale on  July  18, 1973,  at Dallas
 Laboratories,  Dallas,  Texas.  The  pesticide  involved  was
 SOUTHWEST SANITARY REPEL PERSONAL INSECT REPELLENT;
 charges included adulteration and misbranding—strength or purity
 fell below the professed standard of quality as expressed on labeling.

 The respondent  signed  a  Consent  Agreement. The Final Order
 assessed a civil penalty of $300.00.
1431. In Re: Ecco Chemicals, Inc, EPA Region VI, July 26,1974.
     (I.F.&R. No. VI-18C, I.D. No. 104625.)

This was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide  Act, 7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(lME); 136(q)(2MA); 136(q)(l)(F); 136(q)(l)(G);and 136(q)(2)(Q.
The action pertained to a shipment made on June 25,  1973, from
Dallas, Texas, to Lafayette,  Louisiana. The pesticide involved was
ALGICIDE; the charge was misbranding—-lack of adequate warning
or caution statement, ingredient statement, directions for use, state-
ment of net weight, and brand name on labels.

The  respondent signed  a Consent  Agreement. The Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $1650.00.
                            908

-------
1432. In Re: Apollo Enterprises, Inc., EPA Region VI, August 19,
     1974. (I.F.&R. No. VI-17C, I.D. No. 104587.)

This was  a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide Act,  7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l}(E);  136(q)(l)(A);  136(c)(l);  and  136(c)(2).  The  action
pertained to a product held for distribution or sale on September 20,
1973, at Apollo Enterprises, Inc., Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The pesticide
involved  was APOLLO  BRAND 4  LB.  METHYL PARATHION
EMULSIFIABLE INSECTICIDE CONCENTRATE;  charges included
adulteration and misbranding—strength or purity  fell below the
professed standard of quality as represented in labeling and product
was contaminated with an additional active ingredient not declared
in labeling.

The respondent signed a  Consent  Agreement.  The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $850.00.
1433. In Re:  Durham's  Drug  Products  Co.,  EPA Region  VI,
     August 19, 1974. (I.F.&R. No. VI-25C, I.D. Nos. 104668,
     104665,104663, and 104662.)

This was a  civil action charging  the respondent  with violating  the
Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide,  and Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l)(E); 136(q)(l)(A);  136(q)(l)(F);  and 136(c)(l). The action
pertained to products held for distribution or sale on December  14,
1973, at Durham's Drug Products  Co., Commanche, Texas. The
pesticides involved were DURHAM'S DAIRY CATTLE INSECTICIDE,
DURHAM'S CARBON DISULFIDE, DURHAM'S  5% SEVIN DUST,
and  DURHAM'S 5% ROTENONE CUBE POWDER; charges in-
cluded adulteration and misbranding—strength or purity fell below
the professed standard of quality as represented in labeling and lack
of adequate directions for use on labeling.

The  respondent signed a  Consent Agreement. The Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $2500.00.
                            909

-------
1434.  In  Re: Helena Chemical Company, EPA Region VI,
     September 11,1974. (I.F.&R. No. VI-24C, I.D. Nos. 104609,
     104604 and 104599.)

This  was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide  Act,  7 U.S.C.
136j(a)(l)(E);  136(q)(1)(A); and 136(c)(2). The  action pertained to
products held  for distribution or sale on September 25 and 26, 1973,
at  Helena Chemical  Company,  West Helena,  Arkansas.  The
pesticides involved were HELENA  BRAND 6 TOX--1.5  METHYL,
HELENA  BRAND 1.6  ENDRIN  EMULSIFIABLE INSECTICIDE
CONCENTRATE,  and  HELENA  BRAND  CHLORDANE  8-E;
charges included adulteration and misbranding—strength or purity
fell below the professed standard of quality  as expressed on its
labeling and contained an additional active ingredient not declared
on the label.

The  respondent  signed a  Consent  Agreement. The Final  Order
assessed a civil penalty of $10,000.00.
1435. U.S. v. Baroid Division, NL Industries, U.S. District Court,
     Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Criminal No.
     73-H-283, July 25, 1973.  (I.F.&R. No. VI-20, I.D.  Nos.
     101561,101614,101615, and 101616.)

This was a criminal action prepared by EPA Region VI charging the
defendant in a 13  count information with violating  the Federal
Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and Rodenticide Act,  7 U.S.C.  135a(a)(1);
135a(a)(5);  135(z)(2)(i);  135{z)(2)(c);  and  135(z)(2)(e).  The action
pertained to shipments made on June 20, August 30, September 5,
and  September 13,  1972, from Houston, Texas, to Houma and
Crowley,  Louisiana.  The pesticides  involved  were BAROCHEM-
B460,  SURFLO-B19  BIOCIDE,  SURFLO-B17  BIOCIDE,   and
SURFLO-B33 BIOCIDE; charges included nonregistration and mis-
branding—lack of adequate warning or caution statement, lack of
adequate ingredient  statement, and lack of adequate directions for
use on labels.
                           910

-------
The defendant entered a plea of guilty to counts 1, 4,7, and 10. The
remaining counts were dismissed.

A fine of $1600.00 was levied. $1500.00 of the fine was suspended
with the defendant being placed on one year probation.
1436.  U.S.  v. Aquaness  Chemical  Co., U.S. District Court,
     Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Criminal No.
     73-8285,  October  1,  1973. (I.F.&R. No. VI-6, I.D.  No.
     97748.)

This was a criminal action prepared by EPA Region VI charging the
defendant in a two count information with violating  the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide  Act, 7  U.S.C.  135a(a)(l);
135a(a)(5); and 135(z)(2)(e). The action pertained to a shipment made
on March  7, 1972, from Houston, Texas, to Robinson, Illinois. The
pesticide  involved   was  AQUANUL   819;   charges  included
nonregistration  and  misbranding—lack  of adequate ingredient
statement on labels.

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to count 1.

A fine of $ 100.00 was levied.
1437. U.S. v. Stern Chemical Corp., U.S. District Court, Western
     District   of  Louisiana,  Criminal  No.   Cr   73-0028-M,
     November 19, 1973. (I.F.&R. No. VI-24, I.D. Nos 97096,
     87760,  87758,  101605,  87761,  90788,  90789,  87751,
     101587,101607,87756, and 101606.)

This was a criminal action prepared by EPA Region VI charging the
defendant in a  30 count information with violating the  Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,  7 U.S.C.  135a(a)(1);
135a(a)(5); 135(z)(2)(i); 135b(a); 40 CFR  162.9; 135(a)(2)(c);  and
135(z)(2)(c). The  action pertained  to shipments made on July 28,
.1971; May 19, July 10, 12, 20, and 28, August 7, 10 and  14, and
September 8 and 20,  1972, from Monroe, Louisiana, to Marianna,

                            911

-------
Star City, and  Stuttgart, Arkansas;  Carthage,  Fulton,  Leland,
Pontotoc, Vicksburg, and Winona, Mississippi; and Bridgeport and
Richland Hills, Texas. The pesticides invloved were DEEP KILL CON-
CENTRATED WEED KILLER AND SOIL STERILANT; WEEDEX-10
NON-SELECTIVE FAST ACTING WEED AND BRUSH KILLER;
WEEDEX 65 LOW VOLATILE ESTER WEED, GRASS AND BRUSH
KILLER; KILZALL; STERN-FOG 50 MUNICIPAL  MOSQUITO
FOGGING     CONCENTRATE;     WEEDEX-55;     LEMON
DISINFECTANT; COAL TAR DISINFECTANT; WEEDEX-10; and
FORMULA 100 SPECIAL; charges included nonregistration and mis-
branding—lack of adequate caution or warning statement, lack of
adequate directions for use and lack of statement of net weight or
measure of content on labels.

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to 20 of the 30 counts with the
remainder being dismissed.

A fine of $4000.00 was levied with $2000.00 being suspended.
1438. U.S. v. SEC Corporation, U.S. District Court, W District of
    Texas,  Criminal  No.  EP-73-CR-566,  August  7,  1974.
    (I.F.&R. No. 1377, I.D. Nos. 85794, 85795, 85796, 85797,
    85798,85799,85800, and 969460

This was a criminal action charging the defendant in an 11 count in-
formation with violating the  Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,  and
Rodenticide Act,  7 U.S.C. 135a(a)(l); 135a(a)(5); 135b,- 135f;
135(z)(l); and  40 CFR 162.14(a)(5) and  162.122. The  action
pertained to shipments made on April 23 and  May 25, 1971, from El
Paso,  Texas, to Mesilla Park and Albuquerque, New Mexico. The
pesticides involved were CONTROL BERMUDA GRASS ROOT
KILLER, CONTROL PRE-EMERGENCE WEED SEED  KILLER 2,
CONTROL PRE-EMERGENCE WEED SEED  KILLER 1, CONTROL
EVERGREEN LAWN EDGER, CONTROL NUT GRASS KILLER,
CONTROL SELECTIVE  BROADLEAF WEED KILLER, CONTROL
RAPID KILL, and ECCO BLEACH; charges included nonregistration
and misbranding—labels bore unwarranted safety claims.
                          912

-------
The case was dismissed  by the  court upon  motion  of  the U.S.
Attorney.
1439. In Re: Gateway Chemical Company, Inc., EPA Region VII,
     June  18,  1974.  (I.F.&R. No. VII-32C, I.D. Nos.  102268,
     102269,105562, and 105563.)

This was  a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
135a(a)(l);  135b;   136j(a)(l)(E);  and   136(q)(l)(A).  The  action
pertained  to shipments  made  on August 16, and 20, 1973, from
Kansas City, Missouri, to Mission, Kansas, and Kansas City, Kansas,
and to products  held for distribution or sale on September 10, 1973,
at Gateway Chemical Company,  Inc., Kansas  City, Missouri. The
pesticides   involved  were  A-B   STABILIZED  SODIUM  HY-
POCHLORITE SOLUTION, "QUATRAMONE", POD PINE OIL
DISINFECTANT,   and    PINEOLEUM   BACTERICIDE   AND
DISINFECTANT;  charges  included  nonregistration  and  mis-
branding—labels bore a false or misleading registration number im-
plying that the product was registered.

The  respondent signed a Consent Agreement. The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $3,000.00.
1440. In Re: Pur-O-Zone Chemical Company, Inc., EPA Region
     VII, July 31,1974. (I.F.&R. No. VII-47C, I.D. No. 87528.)

This was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide  Act, 7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l)(E); 136(q)(l)(A); and 136(c)(l). The  action pertained to a
product held for distribution or sale on November 19,1973, at Pur-O-
Zone Chemical Company,  inc., Lawrence, Kansas. The pesticide
involved was  NO.  21  GERM-X  DISINFECTANT  SANITIZER;
charges included adulteration and misbranding—strength or purity
fell below the professed standard of quality as  expressed on labeling.
                            913

-------
The respondent signed a  Consent Agreement- The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $500.00.
1441. In Re: International Minerals & Chemical  Corp.,  EPA
     Region VII, August 5, 1974. (I.F.&R. No. VII-51C, I.D. Nos
     102726 and 102727.)

This  was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide Act, 7  U.S.C.
135a(a)(l); 135b;  136j(a)(l)(E); 136(q)(l)(G);  136{q)(2)(C)(v); and
136(q)(l)(E). The action pertained to a shipment made on October 19,
1973, from Mt. Ayr, Iowa, to Genoa, Nebraska. The pesticides
involved were SHAMROCK 18-3-5 LAWN FOOD WITH WEED
KILLERS and 12-2-4 TEMPO LAWN FOOD WITH CRABGRASS
PREVENTER;    charges     included    nonregistration    and
misbranding—lack of adequate warning or caution statement and
lack of assigned registration number on labels.

The  respondent signed  a Consent Agreement.  The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $3,500.00.
1442. In Re:  Western Chemical  Company, EPA Region VII,
     August  16,  1974. (I.F.&R. No. VII-50C, I.D. Nos. 87535,
     87536,87537, and 105560.)

This  was a civil action  charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide Act, 7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l)(E), 136{q){l)(G), 136(q){l)(E), 136(q)(2)(Q(m), 136(qMl}(A),
and  136{c){l). The action pertained to products held for distribution
or sale on December 11, 1973, and January 23, 1974, at Western
Chemical Company, St. Joseph, Missouri. The pesticides involved
were FLY-NIP, SANITOX, and IN-A-JIFFY LIQUID TOILET BOWL
CLEANER;    charges    included    adulteration    and    mis-
branding—strength or purity fell below the professed standard of
quality as expressed on its  labeling, lack of adequate warning or
caution statement on labels, and lack of statement of net weight or
measure of content.

                            914

-------
The  respondent signed a  Consent Agreement. The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $ 1,100.00.
1443. In Re: Steelcote Manufacturing Company, EPA Region
     VII,  September 3,  1974. (I.F.&R. No. VII-46C, I.D.  No.
     91565.)

This  was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and Rodenticide Act, 7  U.S.C
136j(a)(l)(E);   136(q)(2)(C)(v);   136(q)(l)(A};   136(q)(l)(G);    and
136(q)(l)(F). The action pertained to a product held for distribution or
sale  on September 7, 1973, at Steelcote Manufacturing Company,
St. Louis, Missouri. The pesticide involved was DAMP-TEX A & A
SEALER; the charge was misbranding—lack of adequate warning or
caution statement on labels, lack of adequate directions for use on
labels, lack of assigned registration number on labels and labels bore
false or misleading safety claims.

The  respondent  signed  a  Consent  Agreement.  The  Final  Order
assessed a civil penalty of $1,200.00.
1444. In re: The Sterling Co., Inc., EPA Region IX, August 22,
     1974. (I.F.&R. No. IX-36C, I.D. No. 101882.)

This was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C.
135a(a)(l);  135b;  136j(a)(l)(E);  and   136(q)(l){A).  The action
pertained  to  a shipment made on May 24,  1973, from Sparks,
Nevada, to Murray, Utah. The pesticide involved was MOTH AND
DEODORANT  CAKES;  charges  included  nonregistration  and
misbranding—labels bore a false or misleading registration number
implying that the product was registered.

The respondent  signed a  Consent Agreement.  The Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of  $750.00.
                            915

-------
 1445. In Re: Calinventory Corporation, EPA Region IX, August
     28,1974. (I.F.&R. No. IX-47C, I.D. No. 74859.)

This was a civil action charging the respondent  with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and  Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
 136j(a)(l)(E); 136(q)(l)(E); 135a(a)(l);  and 136(q)[l)(A).  The action
pertained to a shipment made on February 22, 1973, from Vernon,
California, to  Scottsdale,  Arizona.  The  pesticide involved  was
ALGAEDYN; charges included claims and directions for use differed
from  those  represented  in  connection with its  registration  and
misbranding—labels bore unwarranted safety claims and labels bore
false or misleading statements.

The  respondent  signed a  Consent Agreement.  The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $1000.00.
1446. In Re: Jessen & Co., Inc., d/b/a  Dune Company,  EPA
     Region IX, September 13, 1974. (I.F.&R. No. IX-56C, I.D.
     Nos. 113628 and 113629.)

This was a civil action charging the respondent  with violating the
Federal. Insecticide,  Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide  Act,  7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l)(E); 136{q)(l}(G); 135a(a)(l); and 136{q)(l)(A). The action
pertained to products held for distribution or sale on February 27,
1974, at Jessen & Co.,  Inc., d/b/a/ Dune Company, Calipatria,
California. The pesticides involved were  PROKIL PHOSDRIN 4 EC
and  PHOSPHAMIDON 8 SPRAY; charges included composition,
claims  and directions for use differed  from those represented  in
connection with its registration and misbranding—lack of adequate
warning or caution statement on labels  and labels bore  a false or
misleading statement.

The  respondent  signed  a Consent  Agreement. The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $2,000.00.
1447.  In Re:  Vasco Chemical  Co.,  Inc.,  EPA Region  IX,
     September 13,1974. (I.F.&R. No.-IX-57C, I.D. No. 113727.)

                            916

-------
This was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7  U.S.C.
136j{a)(l)(E}; 136;(q)(l)(E); and 136(q)(l)(A). The action pertained to a
product held  for distribution or sale on April 11, 1974, at Vasco
Chemical Co., Inc., Hanford, California. The pesticide involved was
VASCO FORMULA 100G; the charge was misbranding—label bore
a false or misleading safety claim.

The  respondent  signed a  Consent Agreement.  The  Final Order
assessed a civil penalty of $750.00.
1448. In Re: Chas. H. Lilly Co., EPA Region X, June 18, 1974.
     (I.F.&R. No. X-1C, I.D. No. 103692.)

This  was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal   Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l)(E);  136(q}(l){G); 136(q)(l)(F);and 136(q)(2)(A). The action
pertained to a shipment made on December 4,  1972, from Portland,
Oregon, to  Seattle,  Washington.  The  pesticide  involved was
MILLER'S SLUG, SNAIL AND INSECT KILLER BAIT; the  charge
was  misbranding—lack of adequate warning or caution statement,
lack  of adequate directions for use, and lack of adequate ingredient
statement on labels.

The  respondent  signed a  Consent  Agreement.  The  Final  Order
assessed a civil penalty of $1000.00.
1449. In Re: Chas. H. Lilly Co., EPA Region X, June 18, 1974.
     (I.F.&R. No. X-2C, I.D. No. 103794.)

This was a civil  action charging the respondent with  violating the
Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C.
136j(a)(l){E);  136(q)(l)(A); and  136(c)(2). The action pertained to a
shipment made on November 3, 1972, from Portland, Oregon, to
Seattle,  Washington.  The pesticide  involved was  MILLER'S
ROTEFIVE (5% ROTENONE SPRAY POWDER) INSECTICIDE;
                            917

-------
charges included misbranding and adulteration—contaminated with
additional active ingredient not declared on the label.

The  respondent signed  a - Consent Agreement.  The Final  Order
assessed a civil penalty of $1000.00.
1450. In Re: Tyler Products, EPA Region X, August 26, 1974.
     (I.F.&R. Nos. X-11C and X-12C,  I.D. Nos. 93086 and
     93087.)

This  was a civil action charging the respondent with violating the
Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide,  and  Rodenticide Act, 7  U.S.C.
136j(a)(l)(E) and 136(q)(l)(A). The action pertained to products held
for distribution or sale on November 26, 1973, at Tyler Products,
Puyallup,  Washington. The pesticides involved were  TYLER'S
WARFARIN RAT & MOUSE KILLER BAIT and TYLER'S CHEESE
FLAVORED WARFARIN RAT  &  MOUSE KILLER  PELLETS; the
charge was misbranding—the  labels bore  a false  or misleading
statement.

The  respondent signed a  Consent Agreement.  The Final  Order
assessed a civil penalty of $300.00.
                            918

-------
          Index  to  Notices of  Judgment 1401  -  1450

                                                    NJ.  No.

Anderson  Chemical  Company, The (Civil)                    1427
Apollo Enterprizes,  Inc. (Civil)                              1432
Aquaness  Chemical  Co. (Criminal)                          1436
Babco Chemical Co.,  Inc.  (Civil)                            1412
Baroid Division,  ML Industries (Criminal)                    1435
Calinventory  Corporation (Civil)                             1445
Chas. H.  Lilly Co. (Civil)                                   1448
Chas. H.  Lilly Co. (Civil)                                   1449
Chem - Clean,  Inc. (Civil)                                 1408
Chemical  Processors,  Inc. (Civil)                             1415
Dallas Laboratories  (Civil)                                  1430
Davis - Weil Mfg.  Co. (Civil)                              1413
Dickler Chem. Labs, Inc. (Civil)                             1403
Durham's  Drug Products  Co.  (Civil)                         1433
E. I.  DuPont de Nemours &  Co.  (Civil)                      1404
Ecco  Chemicals,  Inc.  (Civil)                                1431
Echol Chemical Formulators,  Inc.  (Criminal)                  1420
Edco  Chemical Company,  Inc. (Civil)                        1416
FHW Toxicology  and Biology Laboratories
  (Criminal)                                               1422
Florida Seed & Feed Company (Criminal)                    1419
Gateway  Chemical  Company, Inc.  (Civil)                    1439
General Blending Company,  Inc.  (Civil)                      1409
Grace-Lee Perfumed  Deodorant Blocs
  (Seizure)                                                1429
Helena Chemical  Company  (Civil)                            1434
Industrial  Maintenance  Corp.  (Civil)                         1414
International  Minerals & Chemical Corp.
  (Civil)                                                   1441
J. L  Hoffman &  Co.,  Inc. (Civil)                           1402
Jessen &  Co.,  Inc., d/b/a Dune Company
  (Civil)                                                   1446
Kentucky  By-Products Corporation (Civil)                     1410
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (Civil)                    1418
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (Criminal)                 1421
Molten Chemical  Co. (Civil)                                1405
Pen-Kote  Paint Company (Civil)                             1406
                              919

-------
Pet Chemicals,  Inc., Thomas E. Duffey,
  and  William  R.  Coleman (Criminal)                        1426
Pfister  Chemical (Criminal)                                  1424
Progress  Paint Manufacturing Company,  Inc.
  (Civil)                                                   1417
Pur-O-Zone Chemical Company, Inc. (Civil)                  1440
R.  M.  Hollingshead Corp. (Civil)                            1401
Redd  Pest Control Company,  Inc. (Criminal)                 1425
Rigo Chemical Company (Civil)                              1407
SEC Corporation  (Criminal)                                 1438
Steelcote Manufacturing  Company (Civil)                    1443
Sterling Co., Inc.,  The (Civil)                              1444
Sterling Drug,  Inc. (Criminal)                               1428
Stern  Chemical Corp. (Criminal)                             1437
Tri-Chek,  Inc. (Civil)                                       1411
Tyler  Products (Civil)                                       1450
U.S. Borox and Chemical Corporation
  (Criminal)                                                1423
Vasco  Chemical  Co., Inc. (Civil)                            1447
Western  Chemical  Company (Civil)                          1442
                              920

-------