SUMMARY OF CIVIL PENALTIES - Office of Indiana State Chemist

egarding the use of personal protective equipment. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to the fact that this was his secondoffense of similar nature (see 2004/0367).Case #2010/0001 Disposition: Daniel Maciel was cited for violation of section 65(9)of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides for hire withouthaving an Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 wasassessed for this violation.Case #2010/0176Disposition:A. Danny Toon, Jeff Flanary and Picasso Lawn & Landscape were cited for violationof section 65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticidesfor hire without having an Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in theamount of $1,000.00 was assessed. Consideration was given to the fact that this was theirthird violation of similar nature.B. On November 2, 2009, Danny Toon called and requested that he be allowed tomake payments to pay off the civil penalty. He was advised that he could pay $250.00per month for four consecutive months, starting December 1, 2009.

CASE SUMMARYCase #2009/0416Complainant:Business:Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)175 South University StreetWest Lafayette, IN 47907-2063Community Landscape, Inc. (unlicensed business)Kevin Rickard (unlicensed applicator)605 Ohio Street, Suite 404Terre Haute, IN 47807-3512812-466-97281. On April 3, 2009, the Office of the Indiana State Chemist received an anonymous complaint allegingthat Community Landscape had made a pesticide application to the landscaping beds at a propertylocated at 2923 Woodcrest Lane, in Terre Haute, IN. The complaint information also alleged that thepesticides were purchased from John Deere Landscapes and that the product was being hid insidegrass seed bags to avoid detection if inspected by the State Chemist Office. Community Landscapewas previously charged with operating without a pesticide business license in 2004 (see case#2004/0385). OISC records indicated that Community Landscape is not currently a licensed business.2. On April 14, 2009, I spoke with Roger Smith, Branch Manager of John Deere Landscapes inIndianapolis. Mr. Smith informed me that Community Landscape had purchased pesticide productsfrom them and agreed to send me the purchase invoices from this year. These invoices were receivedon April 14, 2009, and indicated that Community Landscape had purchased at total of seven (7) fifty(50) pound bags of Snapshot 2.5 TG (EPA Reg. #62719-175; active ingredient: trifluralin andisoxaben) and one (1) quart of Lontrel (EPA Reg. #62719-305; active ingredient: clopyralid).3. The previous case in 2004 against Community Landscape was for services performed at Terre HauteRegional Hospital, so I contacted Terre Haute Regional Hospital and spoke to Director of Facilities,Don Sanders. Mr. Sanders stated that Community Landscape was still maintaining the landscapingbeds for the hospital and that weed preventative pesticides were being used by Community Landscapeper their contract with the hospital. Mr. Sanders supplied me a copy of their contract withCommunity Landscape dated March 10, 2009. The contract stated the following: “A pre-emergentherbicide will also be applied to bedding areas for weed control. This will consist of the removal ofall weeds in bedding areas and chemical treatment to control root growth.” “Inside court yard: Workwill consist of spraying area with weed killer….”4. On May 5, 2009, I went to Terre Haute Regional Hospital and took soil samples from the mulch beds.These soil samples were turned into the Pesticide Residue Laboratory on May 6, 2009, for analysis.The results of the analysis were reported back on August 10, 2009, and indicated that the activeingredients trifluralin and isoxaben (Snapshot 2.5) were present in the soil. The active ingredientclopyralid (Lontrel) was detected.5. On May 14, 2009, I went to the property located at 2923 Woodcrest Lane. The homeowner of theproperty agreed to allow me to take soil samples from the mulched landscaping beds around hisproperty. These samples were turned into the Pesticide Residue Lab on May 15, 2009, for analysis.Page 1 of 2

The results of the analysis were reported back on August 8, 2009, and indicated that the activeingredient trifluralin and isoxaben (Snapshot 2.5) were present in the soil. The active ingredientclopyralid (Lontrel) was detected.6. On May 15, 2009, I received a phone call from the wife of the homeowner I had spoken with theprevious day at 2923 Woodcrest Lane. She informed me that she had applied Preen (EPA Reg. #961-280; active ingredient: trifluralin) to her landscaping beds this year and was not aware of anypesticide products that Community Landscape applied to her landscaping beds. The product Preendoes not contain the active ingredient isoxaben (found in Snapshot), but this active ingredient wasfound in the soil sample taken from her landscaping beds (see paragraph 5). She also informed methat she had asked Mr. Rickard about treating her lawn and he had informed her that they were notlicensed to apply pesticides and had recommended Bowman’s Pro Turf for the treatment of her lawn.7. I contacted Bowman’s Pro Turf and spoke with co-owner, Christine Bowman. Mrs. Bowmaninformed me that her company had been making lawn applications for Community Landscape, buthadn’t done any landscaping bed (Category 3a) applications for them.8. On June 9, 2009, I contacted Mr. Richard and he agreed to meet with me about the complaint. Mr.Richard informed me during our phone conversation that he had made some weed preventativetreatments this year. Mr. Richard stated that he had needed to get some jobs done and did not subcontractthe ornamental bed applications out. I informed Mr. Richard that I would need to see a list ofany commercial or residential accounts he had performed pesticide applications at this year.9. On June 17, 2009, I met with Mr. Richard at his business location. Mr. Richard informed me that hedid not have any specific locations that he had applied at and his billing invoices only showed “SpringCleanup”. These invoices did not list specific services provided by Community Landscape. Mr.Richard did inform me that he had made an application of Snapshot to the landscape beds at TerreHaute Regional Hospital this year, but not at 2923 Woodcrest Lane as listed in the original complaint.Mr. Richard was issued a modified Stop, Sale, Use and Removal Order, instructing him to make nofurther pesticide applications for hire until Community Landscape receives a pesticide businesslicense. Mr. Richard did inform me that he was now sub-contracting all pesticide applications out toBowman’s Pro Turf and has future plans to get another pesticide business license.Scott M Farris Date: August 11, 2009Pesticide InvestigatorDisposition: Kevin Rickard was cited for violation of section 65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use andApplication Law for applying pesticides for hire without having an Indiana pesticide business license. Acivil penalty in the amount of $500.00 was assessed for this violation. Consideration was given to thefact that this was his second offense of similar nature (see case number 2004/0385).Mr. Rickard was also re-assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 for case number 2004/0385.The disposition on that summary indicated the $250.00 civil penalty would be held in abeyance providedMr. Rickard did not apply pesticides for hire without becoming properly licensed.The total amount of civil penalty assessed for this investigation is $750.00. No civil penalty money wasreceived on this case, therefore, it was forwarded for collection.George N. Saxton Draft Date: August 11, 2009Compliance Officer Final Date: December 17, 2009Page 2 of 2

Complainant:Jim Tarnowski1077 W. 350 N.Camden, Indiana 46917800-893-6637CASE SUMMARYTarget: Townsend Aviation, Inc. Certified BusinessJim HurtCertified Applicator2411 S. Airport RoadMonticello, Indiana 47960574-583-5888Case #2009/05331. On May 20, 2009, the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received a complaint from JimTarnowski. Mr. Tarnowski stated that he was hit with aerial spray by a yellow crop dusting plane.2. On May 27, 2009, I made contact with the complainant. His residence is located across the road fromthe target field. At the time of the spray application, he walked to the edge of the road. He tried to getthe attention of the aerial applicator. Instead, he was sprayed. He told me that he could feel his eyesand skin burning from the spray. He placed the shirt he was wearing in a plastic bag. I took the shirtand placed it in a Mylar bag as evidence. The bag was marked "CS-1" for submission to the OISCResidue Lab for analysis.3. I also spoke to the complainant's wife, Judy Berkshire. She told me that she was moving some plantsalong the west side of the house when she felt the mist from the application. She was approximately150 feet from the target field at the time (see diagram below). She felt her eyes and skin burning. Shealso began coughing. She immediately went into the house to wash. The bouts of coughing lastedapproximately two hours. She did not seek medical attention.Page 1 of 2

4. I spoke to the target field farmer Larry Trapp. He told me that his wheat field (target field) wassprayed with a fungicide. I was able to determine that Townsend Aviation Inc. made the aerialapplication.5. On June 4, 2009, a Pesticide Investigation Inquiry (PII) was mailed to Townsend Aviation Inc. OnJune 10, 2009, a completed PII was returned to OISC. According to the PII, an application of Stratego(EPA Reg. #264-779 active ingredients propicanizole and trifloxystrobin) was made by certifiedaerial applicator Jim Hurt on May 20, 2009, at 11:52am. The wind was from the south at 5 miles perhour.6. According to the web site "www.wunderground" for May 20, 2009, the wind was blowingapproximately 10 miles per hour from the south in a northerly direction toward the complainant'shouse. (See diagram below)7. Listed below are the OISC Residue Lab results:Sample Number Sample Description Test ResultCS-1 Complainant Shirt Trifloxystrobin CONFPropiconazole CONFCONF = Confirmed8. The label instructions for Stratego reads, "Do not apply this product in a way that will contactworkers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the areaduring application.".Kevin W. Gibson Date: September 19, 2009Pesticide InvestigatorDisposition: Jim Hurt was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana Pesticide Use andApplication Law for failure to follow label directions for allowing a pesticide to contact people. A civilpenalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation. In addition, Mr. Hurt’s applicatorlicense was suspended for a period of thirty (30) days. Consideration was given to the fact that there washuman exposure.George N. Saxton Draft Date: October 8, 2009Compliance Officer Final Date: November 6, 2009Page 2 of 2

Complainant:CASE SUMMARYOffice of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)175 South University StreetWest Lafayette, IN 47907-2063Dealer: Superior Ag (licensed business)504 S. 2 nd StreetOwensville, IN 47665812-724-2415Case #2009/07251. On July 28, 2009, I went to Superior Ag to request Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP) salesrecords for an ongoing investigation regarding Kruse Brother Farms (see case #2009/0579).During my inspection of the RUP sales records, it was discovered that Superior Ag had soldRUP’s to an unlicensed applicator.2. I spoke with Office Manager, Frances Webb. Ms. Webb informed me that the FacilityManager, Wayne Scott, was on vacation. Ms. Webb was informed of the ongoinginvestigation and asked to supply Restricted Use Sales records. However, Ms. Webbindicated that the computer system was down and I would need to contact their corporateoffice. Ms. Webb did supply me with the invoice folder for Kruse Brother Farms and thefollowing copies of RUP sales records to Kruse Brother Farms were obtained:• November 5, 2007; June 4, 2008; June 13, 2008; April 4, 2009; April 30, 2009; and June15, 20093. The sales invoices listed both Terry Kruse and Alan Kruse as the purchasers, although someof the Private Applicator numbers listed on the invoices were individuals not associated withKruse Brother Farms.4. On August 18, 2009, I returned to Superior Ag and spoke with Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott informedme that he was unaware the no one from Kruse Brother Farms had a license and this shouldhave been caught. Mr. Scott stated that he would send me all of the RUP sales records forthe past year. These records were received on August 24, 2009. A review of these recordsdid not show where any other RUP’s had been sold to unlicensed individuals.Scott M Farris Date: September 3, 2009Pesticide InvestigatorDisposition: Superior Ag was cited for six (6) counts of violation of violation of 15-16-4-50,specifically 357 IAC 1-3-2, for distributing restricted use pesticides to non-certified users. A civilpenalty in the amount of $1,500.00 (6 counts X $250.00 per count) was assessed for thisinvestigation.George N. Saxton Draft Date: November 18, 2009Compliance Officer Final Date: December 9, 2009

Complainant:Dealer:CASE SUMMARYOffice of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)175 South University StreetWest Lafayette, IN 47907-2063City of Mitchell – Building & Street Department1123 W. Main StreetMitchell, IN 47446Steve Burton (unlicensed applicator)812-849-1811Case #2009/08881. On September 9, 2009, the Office of the Indiana State Chemist received an anonymous complaintalleging the Mitchell Street Department was making mosquito applications without a licensedapplicator on staff. The complaint indicated that Steve Burton or Michael Mann was doing theactual fogging. The OISC database did not indicate that either of these individuals is a licensedapplicators.2. On September 15, 2009, I went to the Mitchell Street Department and met with Building andStreet Commissioner, Steve Burton. Mr. Burton stated that there was currently no one licensedwith the city and that their department had made two (2) mosquito fogging applications this year.These applications were done on July 7, 2009 and September 2, 2009. Mr. Burton indicated thatthey did not keep any records of these applications. Mr. Burton informed me that they had used acompany last year to make the applications, but due to financial reasons, had chosen to do theapplications themselves this year. Mr. Burton did state that they had recently had their foggingequipment calibrated by Mug-O-Bug and he intends to become licensed before next year. Mr.Burton indicated that they had no intentions of making any more applications this year.3. Mr. Burton was issued a modified Stop, Sale, Use and Removal Order instructing them not tomake any more applications until the city had a licensed applicator. Mr. Burton was giveninformation on the licensing process.Scott M Farris Date: September 15, 2009Pesticide InvestigatorDisposition: Steve Burton was cited for two counts of violation of section 65(6) of the IndianaPesticide Use and Application Law, specifically 357 IAC 1-11-2, for using a pesticide forcommunity-wide mosquito abatement without having a category eight (8) license. A civil penalty inthe amount of $500.00 (2 counts x $250.00 per count) was assessed. However, the civil penalty wasreduced to $150.00. Consideration was given to the fact that Mr. Burton cooperated during theinvestigation; corrective action was taken; there was no previous history of similar nature and norestricted use pesticides were involved.George N. Saxton Draft Date: September 17, 2009Compliance Officer Final Date: October 8, 2009

Complainant:Jessica Fullerton211 Marine AvenueElkhart, IN 46516574-215-3363CASE SUMMARYCase #2009/0889Applicator: Keith Sarber Non-licensedEnvirotech53577 Woodside DriveBristol, IN 45507574-264-99871. On September 9, 2009, Ms. Fullerton contacted the Office of the Indiana State Chemist (OISC) toreport that within the last year she had purchased a home that had a wood destroying insect inspectiondone and then a one year guarantee given by Mr. Sarber. The complainant stated that Mr. Sarber hashad to return to the home on several occasions in an attempt to rid the structure of termites.2. On September 10, 2009, I met with Ms Fullerton at her residence. Ms Fullerton provided me withcopies of paperwork including the NPMA-33 form indicating that Mr. Sarber had conducted theinspection on March 6, 2008, under the business name of Envirotech with his name and certificationnumber and charged a sum of $60.00 dollars for the inspection.3. It should be noted that the OISC data base indicated that Mr. Sarber has not been licensed/certifiedsince 2002.4. I then went to the address given for Mr. Sarber and was unable to locate anyone there at that time. Ileft a message with instructions for Mr. Sarber to contact me as soon as possible.5. After Mr. Sarber contacted me by telephone he then sent me copies of the paperwork he had referencethis inspection and subsequent treatments at the Fullerton home. The paperwork indicated he made atleast two applications for termites, one in April of 2008 and another in July of 2008.6. In April of 2008, Mr. Sarber made a “liquid application” to wall void into fireplace void for no charge.Also in July of 2008 he made a soil application of Termidor to an outside wall 10’ to 12’ longconsisting of 6 gallons @ 1%. Again no charge for the application.Kevin W. Neal Date: September 24, 2009Pesticide InvestigatorDISPOSITON: Keith Sarber was cited for violation of section 65(9)(B) of the Indiana Pesticide Use andApplication Law for making pesticide diagnostic inspections for hire without having an Indiana pesticidebusiness license. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed.George N. Saxton Draft Date: October 19, 2009Compliance Officer Final Date: November 25, 2009

Complainant:Target:CASE SUMMARYOffice of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)175 South University StreetWest Lafayette, IN 47907-2063800-893-6637Kapp’s Green Lawn, Inc.Brian Q. Albright10710 Pendleton Pike, Suite AIndianapolis, IN 46236317-826-3680Certified ApplicatorCase #2009/09221. On September 8, 2009, I observed Brian Albright of Kapp’s Green Lawn making whatappeared to be a pesticide application to 5920 Noble Drive in Indianapolis, Indiana. Iinitiated a routine use inspection and found the following:a. Mr. Albright was applying fertilizer (25-0-3) and Trimec 992 (EPA Reg. #2217-656,active ingredient of 2, 4-D, Propionic acid, and Dicamba) to the lawn.b. Mr. Albright is a certified applicator.c. Mr. Albright was wearing a long sleeve shirt, long pants, and shoes.2. According to the Trimec 992 label, “All mixers, loaders, applicators, and other handlers mustwear: protective eyewear, long sleeved shirt and long pants, shoes and socks, and chemicalresistant gloves.”3. Mr. Albright was not wearing protective eyewear or gloves during the application. When Iasked Mr. Albright if he had these items, he stated he did. He went on to show me rubbergloves still in their original packaging. I instructed Mr. Albright that he was required towear these elements. I also directed Mr. Albright’s attention to the label where it states,“Corrosive. Causes irreversible eye damage.”Elizabeth C. Carter Date: September 11, 2009Pesticide InvestigatorDisposition: Brian Albright was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the Indiana PesticideUse and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding the use of personalprotective equipment. A civil penalty in the amount of $25.00 was assessed for this violation.George N. Saxton Draft Date: September 11, 2009Compliance Officer Final Date: October 27, 2009

Complainant:CASE SUMMARYOffice of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)175 S. University StreetWest Lafayette, IN 47907800-893-6637Applicator: Christopher Knight Certified ApplicatorTippecanoe Lawn Care4400 St. Rd. 25 N.Lafayette, IN 47905765-589-8251Case #2009/09261. On September 17, 2009, I observed Mr. Knight making a liquid application of some sort to theproperty located at 3 Creekview Dr. in Lafayette, IN. At the time of my observation I could seethat Mr. Knight was not wearing a long sleeve shirt and in fact was wearing a sleeveless/tank typeof shirt. I could also see that Mr. Knight was not wearing any protective eyewear. See figures oneand two.Figure oneFigure two2. I then approached Mr. Knight and identified myself to him and issued a Notice of Inspection. Mr.Knight advised that he was making an application of liquid fertilizer and a broadleaf herbicide. Iasked him if he had a label for the herbicide he was applying and he produced the label forTrimec 992 Broadleaf Herbicide (EPA Reg. #2217-656) active ingredients 2,4-D, dicamba andmcpa.3. The label for Trimec 992 states, “All mixers, loaders, applicators and other handlers must wearprotective eyewear, long sleeved shirt and long pants, shoes plus socks, chemical resistantgloves…”Kevin W. Neal Date: September 17, 2009Pesticide InvestigatorDISPOSITION: Christopher Knight was cited for violation of section 65(2) of the IndianaPesticide Use and Application Law for failure to follow label directions regarding the use of personalprotective equipment. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.Consideration was given to the fact that this was his second offense of similar nature (see 2004/0367).George N. Saxton Draft Date: September 17, 2009Compliance Officer Final Date: October 27, 2009

Complainant:CASE SUMMARYOffice of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)175 S. University StreetWest Lafayette, IN 47907800-893-6637Case #2010/0001Applicator: Daniel Maciel Certified ApplicatorBusiness: Bug Bee Gone Pest Control Not Licensed504 E. Follett Lane, Suite BFremont, IN 46737260-316-74941. On 10-1-2009, the Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC) received anonymous informationindicating Daniel Maciel may be making for-hire pesticide applications without a businesslicense. The information received indicated Mr. Maciel may have performed pest controlservices at Samantha’s House of Pancakes in Angola, Indiana and at Maria’s House ofPancakes in Kendallville, Indiana and Waterloo, Indiana. OISC records indicate Mr. Macielis certified in Category 7a but is not currently associated with a licensed business.2. On 10-15-2009, I spoke with Mr. Maciel and informed him of the complaint. He stated hewas a licensed applicator employed by Charlie’s Spider Fighters until this summer. Mr.Maciel indicated he is in the process of starting a pest control business and is shopping forinsurance so he can apply for his Indiana pesticide business license. He stated he has notmade for-hire applications, but he has made applications at the homes of friends, for nocharge, to get accustomed to his new equipment. He also reported providing a few estimates.Mr. Maciel reported that his financial backer for the business, who co-owns the restaurantsnoted in the complaint, provided him with Bug Bee Gone business cards which have been leftout at the restaurants. I informed Mr. Maciel that advertising and providing estimates forpest control services is prohibited until he obtains a pesticide business license. He agreed tostop giving estimates and remove the business cards from the restaurants until he is properlylicensed.3. On 10-15-2009, I went to Maria’s House of Pancakes at Waterloo, Indiana and spoke withconvenience store manager, Penny Hamman; Maria’s and the convenience store occupy thesame building at a truck stop. Ms. Hamman explained that the two businesses use differentpest control companies. Inside Maria’s, we spoke with Paco Ruiz who produced a Bug BeeGone business card. Mr. Ruiz reported that Bug Bee Gone will be making the pest controlapplications at the restaurant.4. On 10-20-2009, I went to Samantha’s House of Pancakes in Angola, Indiana and spoke withmanager Theresa Shisler. Ms. Shisler produced a service ticket (Invoice #Shp101309) fromBug Bee Gone indicating Cross Check insecticide had been applied on 10-13-2009. Theticket indicated $30.00 was paid with Check #1264. The ticket was photographed as a copierwas not available.Page 1 of 3

Fig.1 Bug Bee Gone service ticket for Samantha’s House of Pancakes in Angola, Indiana5. On 10-20-2009, I went to Maria’s House of Pancakes in Kendallville, Indiana and spoke withthe hostess. I was told I needed to speak with a manager named Amanda about service orbilling questions. She was not there, but I later spoke with “Amanda” on the phone andinformed her of the complaint. She reported that the man from Bug Bee Gone had servicedthe business but she needed some time to find the service ticket. A week later, Amandareported that she was unable to find the service ticket, but she knows service was provided.6. On 10-25-2009, I received a call from Rich Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz stated he is co-owner of therestaurants in question and he is helping Mr. Maciel with startup costs for the business. Hewanted to make sure that there were no problems with Bug Bee Gone obtaining a pesticidebusiness license because one of his sons is going to be working with Mr. Maciel. I informedMr. Ruiz that the OISC is investigating a complaint regarding Mr. Maciel possibly makingapplications without being properly licensed. I informed Mr. Ruiz that the situation needs tobe resolved by Mr. Maciel since he is the certified applicator for the business.7. On 11-2-2009, OISC received an application for business and applicator licenses from Mr.Maciel. On 11-3-2009, I spoke with Mr. Maciel on the phone. He stated he has been withoute-mail and phone service and apologized for his lack of communication. I informed Mr.Maciel that I had seen the service ticket from the application made at Samantha’s. Mr.Maciel reported that he told Mr. Ruiz he needed some money for startup costs. Mr. Ruizreportedly told him to service the restaurants and write up service tickets so the money wouldcome from each restaurant and would go through accounting. Mr. Maciel admitted that hemade pesticide applications at four of Mr. Ruiz’s restaurants on 10-13-2009; these includethe three restaurants previously listed as well as the Covered Bridge Restaurant inPage 2 of 3

Spencerville, Indiana. Mr. Maciel stated he did not think he was doing anything wrong sincehe was servicing businesses owned by his financial backer. He apologized and stated that hewas not intentionally violating any laws.Andrew R. Roth Date: November 5, 2009Pesticide InvestigatorDisposition: Daniel Maciel was cited for violation of section 65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use andApplication Law for applying pesticides for hire without having an Indiana pesticide businesslicense. A civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 was assessed for this violation.George N. Saxton Draft Date: November 6, 2009Compliance Officer Final Date: December 3, 2009Page 3 of 3

CASE SUMMARYCase #2010/0176Complainant:Applicator:Office of Indiana State Chemist (OISC)175 South University StreetWest Lafayette, IN 47907-2063800-893-6637Picasso Lawn and LandscapeJeff Flanary and Danny Toon5149 N Keystone AvenueIndianapolis, IN 46205317-253-52961. On May 27, 2009, Agent Joe Becovitz performed a routine use inspection on DanielLawhorn of Picasso Lawn and Landscape (case 2009/0692). Agent Becovitz cited Mr.Lawhorn for applying pesticides without a license and failure to follow label directionsregarding the use of personal protective equipment. On Agent Becovitz summary it states, “Iwas able to contact Danny Toon, one of the owners of Picasso, and advised him of theinspection and that his company must cease all for hire applications until his company meetsthe Indiana pesticide licensing requirements.”2. On October 1, 2009, I performed a routine use inspection on Jeff Flanary, the other owner, ofPicasso Lawn and Landscape (case 2010/0153). I cited Mr. Flanary for applying pesticideswithout a license and failure to follow label directions regarding the use of personalprotective equipment.3. On October 15, 2009, I performed a follow-up inspection with Mr. Flanary. I asked Mr.Flanary for copy of all his application records/ invoices. He informed me that he only hadSeptember’s application records available. Please see the chart below for, “monthly weedservice” performed by Picasso Lawn and Landscape.Invoice Number Date of application Location/ customer35154 9/15/09 131 St. Empty Lot35156 9/15/09 131 St Nail Salon Building35153 9/15/09 131 St Pond35157 9/15/09 131 st Subway building35155 9/15/09 131 st Starbucks building35158 9/15/09 146 th New building35159 9/15/09 146 th Orthodontist35160 9/15/09 146 th South Drive35114 9/15/09 2930 WalgreensPage 1 of 2

35116 9/15/09 3065 Walgreens35115 9/15/09 5718 Walgreens35117 9/15/09 6299 Walgreens35119 9/15/09 Eric Grabouski35120 9/15/09 Lynn Rodenhuis35118 9/15/09 ToonElizabeth C. Carter Date: October 16, 2009Pesticide InvestigatorDisposition:A. Danny Toon, Jeff Flanary and Picasso Lawn & Landscape were cited for violation ofsection 65(9) of the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law for applying pesticides for hirewithout having an Indiana pesticide business license. A civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00was assessed. Consideration was given to the fact that this was their third violation of similarnature.B. On November 2, 2009, Danny Toon called and requested that he be allowed to makepayments to pay off the civil penalty. He was advised that he could pay $250.00 per month forfour consecutive months, starting December 1, 2009.George N. Saxton Draft Date: October 19, 2009Compliance Officer Second Draft Date: November 6, 2009Final Date: December 3, 2009Page 2 of 2