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
------- |