SUMMARY OF CIVIL PENALTIES - Office of Indiana State Chemist

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