“In its Information Request, EPA requested GMS’s records required to be kept by 40 C.F.R. § 82.156 (a)(3). In response, GMS did not provide records of the company name, location of the appliance, date of recovery, and type of refrigerant recovered for each appliance; or the total quantity of refrigerant, by type, recovered from all disposed appliances in each calendar month.”

💡 This establishes exactly what records were missing and proves GMS failed to comply with specific regulatory requirements.

“As specified at 40 C.F.R. § 82.150(a), the purpose of the regulations is to reduce emissions of class I and class II refrigerants and their non-exempt substitutes to the lowest achievable level during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances.”

💡 The missing records directly undermine the core environmental protection goal of preventing refrigerant releases.

“For the purposes of this proceeding, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(b)(2), Respondent: admits to the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO; admits to the stipulated facts stated in Section D of this CAFO and neither admits nor denies the allegations stated in Section E of this CAFO.”

💡 This shows GMS resolved the case without ever admitting the actual violations, a common settlement structure that avoids corporate accountability.

“By signing this consent agreement, respondent waives any rights or defenses that respondent has or may have for this matter to be resolved in federal court, including but not limited to any right to a jury trial, and waives any right to challenge the lawfulness of the final order accompanying the consent agreement.”

💡 GMS gave up all rights to contest the settlement in court, making this the final resolution with no further legal recourse.

“Technician means any person who in the course of maintenance, service, or repair of an appliance (except MVACs) could be reasonably expected to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit and therefore release refrigerants into the environment.”

💡 The regulations cast a wide net for who must keep records, making it harder for companies to claim ignorance or limited applicability.

“Disposal means the process leading to and including: (1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded appliance into or on any land or water; (2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or on any land or water; (3) The vandalism of any appliance such that the refrigerant is released into the environment or would be released into the environment if it had not been recovered prior to the destructive activity; (4) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component parts; or (5) The recycling of any appliance for scrap.”

💡 The broad definition means nearly every end-of-life pathway for appliances triggers record-keeping requirements, leaving little room for exceptions.

“Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case and GMS’s cooperation and prompt return to compliance, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $101,295.”

💡 EPA considered statutory factors and cooperation in setting the penalty amount, though no detailed breakdown is provided.

“GMS owns or is affiliated with the following business entities: Gold Medal Service, LLC; Gold Medal Plumbing, Inc.; Horizon Services Plumbing, Inc.; Horizon Intermediate, LLC; Water Works Plumbing and Heating; and Horizon Services, LLC.”

💡 The corporate structure involves multiple related companies, potentially complicating accountability and liability determinations.

“The EPA reserves the right to revoke this CAFO and settlement penalty if and to the extent that the EPA finds, after signing this CAFO, that any information provided by Respondent was materially false or inaccurate at the time such information was provided to the EPA, and to assess and collect any civil penalties permitted by statute for any violation described herein.”

💡 This clause protects EPA if it later discovers GMS provided false information, allowing reopening of the case.

“Nothing in this CAFO limits the power of the EPA to undertake any action against Respondent or any person in response to conditions that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, or the environment.”

💡 EPA retains authority to take emergency action if serious environmental threats emerge despite this settlement.

“If Respondent fails to timely pay the full amount of the Assessed Penalty per this Agreement, the entire unpaid balance of the Assessed Penalty and all accrued interest shall become immediately owing, and the EPA is authorized to recover the following amounts: Interest, Handling Charges, and a ten percent (10%) quarterly non-payment penalty.”

💡 Failure to pay on time triggers escalating financial consequences including interest, fees, and additional penalties.

“EPA is required to send to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) annually, a completed IRS Form 1098-F (Fines, Penalties, and Other Amounts) with respect to any court order or settlement agreement (including administrative settlements), that require a payor to pay an aggregate amount that EPA reasonably believes will be equal to, or in excess of, $50,000.”

💡 The settlement amount exceeds the IRS reporting threshold, meaning this enforcement action will be reported to federal tax authorities.

“Penalties, interest, and other charges paid pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deductible for purposes of federal taxes.”

💡 GMS cannot write off the penalty as a business expense, increasing the actual financial impact of the settlement.

“This CAFO constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties and supersedes any prior agreements or understandings, whether written or oral, among the parties with respect to this matter with the exception of the administrative compliance order, docket number EPA-5-25-113(a)-COE-01, issued concurrently.”

💡 A separate compliance order exists alongside this penalty settlement, indicating ongoing regulatory oversight beyond the financial penalty.

“This CAFO will be effective after the Regional Judicial Officer executes the attached Final Order, on the date of filing with the Regional Hearing Clerk. Upon filing, the EPA will transmit a copy of the filed CAFO to Respondent.”

💡 The settlement became legally binding on April 7, 2025, when the Regional Judicial Officer signed and filed the final order.