STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STELLA CHEVROLET, INC. and ) CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION, ) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 88-3099

)

ROBERTS CHEVROLET, INC., ) NIMNICHT CHEVROLET CO. and ) DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY ) AND MOTOR VEHICLES, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to written notice a formal hearing was held in this case before Larry

J. Sartin, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on March 20-24, 1989, in Jacksonville, Florida, and on June 5-9, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner Stella Chevrolet, Inc.:

William Kelley, Esquire* David Brown, Esquire*

55 East Monroe Street Suite 4620

Chicago, Illinois 60603 For Petitioner General Motors Corporation:

Dean Bunch, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell,

Cabaniss, Burke & Wechsler

101 North Monroe Street, Ste. 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Edward W. Risko, Esquire Office of General Counsel General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 48232

Stephen J. Calvacca, Esquire Vasilis C. Katsfans, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell,

Cabaniss, Burke & Wechsler

11 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801

For Respondents Roberts Chevrolet, Inc., and Nimnicht Chevrolet Co.:

Joseph W. Letzer, Esquire

D. Frank Davis, Esquire BURR & FORMAN

3000 SouthTrust Tower

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

For Respondent Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles:

Michael J. Alderman, Esquire* Office of General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and

Motor Vehicles

Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500

*Did not participate in the formal hearing of this case.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Stella Chevrolet, Inc., should be granted a license to establish and operate a new Chevrolet dealership at 1180 South Blanding Boulevard, Orange Park, Clay County, Florida, because of inadequate representation by existing Chevrolet dealers in the relevant territory or community.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On May 24, 1988, Stella Chevrolet, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Stella"), filed an application with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), for a license to establish and operate a Chevrolet dealership in Orange Park, Clay County, Florida. Roberts Chevrolet, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Roberts"), and Nimnicht Chevrolet Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Nimnicht"), protested the application pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes (1987). The protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by letter dated June 22, 1988.

At the formal hearing General Motors Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "GM"), presented the testimony of James A. Anderson, an expert in dealer network planning, Stanley K. Smith, an expert in economics and demographics, and Larry M. Hall. GM also presented the deposition testimony of Eldon Marwede. GM presented 232 exhibits. All were accepted into evidence except: GM 180-181,

189-190 and 223 (withdrawn); GM 213, 215, 217, 222 and 228 (not offered); and GM

226 and 229 (rejected).

Roberts and Nimnicht presented the testimony of Larry M. Hall, Lyman E. Ostlund, an expert in marketing, marketing research, consumer behavior,

statistics and distribution systems, John P. Matthews, an expert in quantitative analysis and applied statistics, Vill Nimnicht, Jr., Conrad Hawkins, Steve Hull, Jerry Hamm and Gerald Roberts. The Respondents also presented the deposition testimony of Charles Willingham, August M. Stella and Marvin Beaupre. Roberts and Nimnicht presented 41 exhibits. All were accepted into evidence except Respondents' 8 and 12 (withdrawn). Only parts of Respondents' 13 were offered into evidence. Respondents' 9 was accepted into evidence only to the extent relevant.

GM filed objections to the deposition testimony of Mr. Beaupre, Respondents' exhibit 41. The objections identified as paragraph's 3, 4 and 8 of GM's objections were sustained. GM also filed objections to the deposition testimony of August M. Stella, Respondents' exhibit 19. Those objections were overruled.

The Department did not participate in the formal hearing of this case.

Stella adopted the position advanced by GM at the formal hearing. Stella did not otherwise participate.

GM and Roberts and Nimnicht have filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order or the proposed finding of fact has been accepted or rejected in the Appendix which is attached hereto.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Stella filed an application with the Department for a license to establish and operate a Chevrolet dealership at 1180 South Blanding Boulevard, Orange Park, Clay County, Florida.

   
   

2. Roberts and Nimnicht filed a letter with the Department protesting Stella's application.

   
   

3. Stella's proposed location is within an area designated by Chevrolet as the Jacksonville multiple dealer area (hereinafter referred to as "MDA").

   
   

4. The Jacksonville MDA is comprised of Duval County and parts of Clay, Nassau and St. Johns Counties.

   
   

5. The Jacksonville MDA is an appropriate starting point in determining the appropriate "community or territory" which will govern in this case.

   
   

6. There are five Chevrolet dealerships located within the Jacksonville MDA: Nimnicht Chevrolet, Conrad Hawkins Chevrolet, Jerry Hamm Chevrolet, Steve Hull Chevrolet and Moore Chevrolet.

   
   

7. There are seven Chevrolet dealerships located in the area which surrounds the Jacksonville MDA: Roberts Chevrolet (located in Green Cove Springs), Wilson Chevrolet (located in St. Augustine), St. Johns Chevrolet (located in Palatka), Ken Reagh Chevrolet (located in MacClenny), Wells Chevrolet (located in Starke), Gasgarth Chevrolet (located in Fernandina Beach) and Bennett Chevrolet (located in Kingsland, Georgia).

   
   

8. The Jacksonville MDA is divided by Chevrolet into six "Areas of Geographic Sales and Service Advantage" (hereinafter referred to as "AGSSA"). AGSSA's are comprised of census tracts. If a census tract cannot be used in

   determining the boundaries of an AGSSA, the AGSSA's boundaries are designated by Chevrolet based upon other geographic descriptions such as zip codes, C-towns and NTC's.

   
   

9. Five of the six AGSSA'S in the Jacksonville MDA have a Chevrolet dealership located within the AGSSA's boundaries:

   
   

   AGSSA Chevrolet Dealership

   1. Hull

   2. Hawkins

   3. Nimnicht

   4. Hamm

   5. Moore

      
      

10. The Chevrolet dealerships located within the Jacksonville MDA are given a competitive advantage within the AGSSA that the dealership is located in because of the geographic location of the dealership.

    
    

11. AGSSA 6 does not have a Chevrolet dealership located within its boundaries. Stella is proposing to operate a Chevrolet dealership within AGSSA 6.

    
    

12. Roberts has been assigned primary responsibility by Chevrolet for servicing Clay County. When consumer buying habits, as evidenced by vehicle sales and registration locations, are considered, Roberts is the only dealer located on the fringes of the Jacksonville MDA whose market area should be considered as part of an interconnected homogeneous shopping area with the Jacksonville MDA.

    
    

13. The area surrounding Roberts should be included as part of the relevant "community or territory" in this case. Taking into account geographic factors which are considered in defining an AGSSA, an area identified by GM as "Area 14" should be assigned to Roberts for inclusion as part of the relevant "community or territory" in this case.

    
    

14. GM and the Chevrolet dealerships located within the Jacksonville MDA have entered into Dealer Sales and Service Agreements (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer Agreement").

    
    

15. The Dealer Agreement establishes the terms of the business relationship between GM and a dealer. Among other things, a Dealer Agreement provides the following general explanation of the purpose of the Dealer Agreement:

    
    

    The purpose of this Agreement is to establish Dealer as an authorized dealer for Chevrolet motor vehicles, to establish the location from which Dealer will operate and to identify the individual Dealer Operator and owner(s) of Dealer on whom General Motors relies in entering into this Agreement. This is a personal service contract setting forth the rights and obligations of Dealer and its approved Dealer Operator and owner(s) and of General Motors relating to the sale and service of Chevrolet motor vehicles and related Parts and Accessories.

16. Among other things, the Dealer Agreement establishes a method of evaluating the performance of a dealer for purposes of determining the dealer's compliance with the Dealer Agreement.

    
    

17. The Dealer Agreements entered into with the Respondent dealers do not specifically deal with the question of what constitutes the "community or territory" for purposes of this case or provide that the Jacksonville MDA should be considered the "community or territory" in this case. Nor did the evidence presented in this case establish that the relevant "community or territory" in this case should be limited to the Jacksonville MDA.

    
    

18. GM conducted a survey of the Jacksonville MDA. The results of the survey were issued in 1987. In the survey GM concluded that an additional dealership was needed in AGSSA 6. The geographic area of AGSSA 6 for purposes of the survey was different from the geographic area of AGSSA 6 relied upon by GM during the formal hearing of this case. The evidence failed to prove, however, that AGSSA 6 as defined by GM during the formal hearing was not a proper designation for purposes of this case. AGSSA 6 as defined during the formal hearing was proper and should be included within the relevant "community or territory."

    
    

19. AGSSA's 1 through 6 and Area 14 constitute a single interconnected market for Chevrolets, based upon consumer buying habits. Based upon this fact and a consideration of vehicle shopping areas and road networks, AGSSA's 1 through 6 and Area 14 (hereinafter referred to as the "Territory"), constitutes the "community or territory" for purposes of the this proceeding.

    
    

20. GM has not contended nor proved that the dealers in the Territory have not complied with the terms of their Dealership Agreements with GM. Instead, GM has contended and proved that existing dealers are not providing adequate representation in AGSSA 6.

    
    

21. Chevrolet's market penetration in the nation as a whole is represented by national averages. Chevrolet's national averages include adequately and inadequately represented markets. National average market penetration rates are an appropriate starting point to develop a standard to determine whether Chevrolet dealers located in the Territory are providing adequate representation. The Respondents have argued that use of national average penetration rates is improper. Although it is true that Single Dealer Areas, which are included in determining national penetration rates, have a higher penetration rate than MDAs such as the Jacksonville MDA, the evidence proved that national averages are a proper standard to apply in this case. National averages include adequately and inadequately represented Single Dealer Areas and MDAs.

    
    

22. Approximately one-half of Chevrolet's Florida markets exceeded national average penetration rates during 1987 and the first six months of 1988. National averages are therefore achievable by Florida Chevrolet markets.

    
    

23. AGSSA 6 ranked near the bottom of all Florida markets in penetration rates for cars and trucks. The Territory also ranked in the bottom half.

    
    

24. The market penetration rates for AGSSA 6 and the Territory during 1987 and the first six months of 1988 were below national average: AGSSA 6's rate during 1987 was only 59% of national average for cars and 77% for trucks; AGSSA

    6's rate during the first six months of 1988 was only 55% of national average for cars and 75% for trucks.

    
    

25. Any given market, including the Territory and/or AGSSA 6, can have unique characteristics which affect the buying habits of the population of the market. GM presented evidence concerning a number of these characteristics: product popularity, age and income. Product preference, age and income statistics of AGSSA 6 and the Territory are not significantly different from product popularity, age and income nationally. This supports a conclusion that national averages are an appropriate standard to apply in this case.

    
    

26. The relative popularity of various types of vehicles in AGSSA 6 and the Territory is almost the same as popularity of the same vehicles nationally. This fact suggests that unique demographic characteristics in AGSSA 6 or the Territory do not justify or explain the difference in penetration rates for AGSSA 6 and/or the Territory compared with national averages.

    
    

27. When the various age groups of new vehicle buyers are compared with the same age groups nationwide, there is no significant difference which explains the lower penetration rate of AGSSA 6 and/or the Territory. This supports a conclusion that national averages are an appropriate standard to apply in this case.

    
    

28. A comparison of the income of residents of AGSSA 6 and the Territory with incomes nationwide also supports a conclusion that national averages are an appropriate standard to apply in this case.

    
    

29. Various parts of the Territory have equaled or exceeded national penetration rates, supporting application of national averages as the appropriate standard. AGSSA 6 has ranked last in the Territory since 1985. AGSSA 6's averages have been below the national averages, Florida averages and the Territory's averages.

    
    

30. A significant difference between AGSSA 6 and the rest of the Territory is the difference in the distances which residents of AGSSA 6 have to travel to a Chevrolet dealership compared to the distances other residents of the Territory must travel. AGSSA 6 residents must travel, on average, almost twice as far.

    
    

31. When AGSSA 6's performance is compared with national averages, AGSSA 6's efficiency from 1985 through the first six months of 1988 was only 65 to 70%. Increases in truck penetration during 1987 and the first six months of 1988 were offset by decreases in car penetration. If fleet opportunities, expected penetration, Florida averages, or Territory averages are taken into account the same lack of efficiency is evidenced in AGSSA 6.

    
    

32. The population in the Territory has steadily increased since 1970. Households have nearly doubled. In AGSSA 6 households have increased four times. The density of the registration of vehicles generally follows the density of population and households. Between 1982 and 1987, new vehicle registrations have increased 74% in the Territory and 84% in AGSSA 6.

    
    

33. During 1988 household income in the Territory generally exceeded

    $15,000.00. AGSSA 5, an AGSSA with a Chevrolet dealership, had the highest household income of $38,844.00. AGSSA 5 also had the highest penetration rate for Chevrolet. AGSSA 2 was the lowest AGSSA with a Chevrolet dealership with household income of $24,237.00. AGSSA 2 still had the second highest

    penetration rate for Chevrolet. AGSSA 6, without a Chevrolet dealership, had household income of $39,874.00. Despite its high household income, AGSSA 6 had the lowest Chevrolet penetration rate.

    
    

34. Since 1980, the employment rate for an area roughly equivalent to the Territory increased 42%. The employment rate for an area roughly equivalent to AGSSA 6 increased 69%.

    
    

35. The increases in population, households and employment in AGSSA 6 represent greater opportunity for vehicle sales. Despite this growth in AGSSA 6 and the population, household and employment increases in the Territory, the number of Chevrolet dealerships in the Territory has remained the same since 1960: six (five in the Jacksonville MDA).

    
    

36. When all Florida markets are looked at, the number of markets in which Chevrolet has exceeded national averages has decreased if industry registrations as a whole increased above 6,000 retail industry registrations per dealer. In markets between 1,500 and 6,000 retail industry registrations per dealer, Chevrolet registrations are slightly above national average.

    
    

37. Using 6,000 retail registrations as a guideline supports a conclusion that there is need for an additional Chevrolet dealership in the Territory. Looking at just AGSSA 3 and 6 and Area 14 supports the same finding.

    
    

38. Competition in the Territory is extremely high. Chevrolet dealers in the Jacksonville MDA maintain one of the largest advertising budgets of any group of Chevrolet dealers.

    
    

39. The boundaries of the AGSSA's within the Territory do not prevent the existing dealers from selling Chevrolets to residents of other AGSSA's or even from outside the Territory. The distance of residences from a dealership, however, does affect the ability of a dealer to effectively penetrate those residences. The distances from existing dealerships to the proposed new Chevrolet dealership in AGSSA 6 range from ten miles to over twenty miles. These distances adversely affect Chevrolet's ability to penetrate AGSSA 6.

    
    

40. Locating a new Chevrolet dealership in AGSSA 6 would significantly improve the convenience in AGSSA 6 for Chevrolet over competing brands and improve its market share.

    
    

41. AGSSA 6 is an identifiable plot.

    
    

42. AGSSA 6 is not receiving adequate representation by existing dealers.

    
    

43. GM presented evidence of four markets in Florida where the introduction of a new dealership was followed by an increase in Chevrolet penetration rates: Crystal River, Eustis, West Palm Beach and Hudson. The introduction of a new Chevrolet dealership into AGSSA 6 should increase Chevrolet's penetration rate in AGSSA 6.

    
    

44. There are sufficient lost sales opportunities in AGSSA 6 to warrant an additional Chevrolet dealership. The Respondents unsuccessfully attempted to prove that there was no lost opportunity. The Respondents' evidence failed to take into account truck lost opportunities.

    
    

45. The Respondents presented evidence in an effort to prove that Chevrolet performs well in areas where the population has certain

    characteristics and that AGSSA 6's population does not have those characteristics. The Respondents conclude from their analysis that Chevrolet sales in AGSSA 6 are as high as can be expected because of the characteristics of the residents of AGSSA 6. The Respondents' position is rejected. The Respondents identified an area as AGSSA 6 which was different from the area designated as AGSSA 6 for this proceeding. The Respondents also assumed that Stella would be located at a site different from the site it is proposing.

    
    

46. The Respondents presented evidence concerning efforts by other Chevrolet dealerships to relocate within the Jacksonville MDA. Whether there are better methods of improving Chevrolet's performance in AGSSA 6 is not at issue in this proceeding. The only issue is whether existing Chevrolet dealerships are providing adequate representation in the Territory for Chevrolet.

    
    

47. The Respondents also presented evidence in an effort to prove that Stella was selected to provide the new dealership because of Mr. Stella's relationship with officials at Chevrolet. The Respondents' continued arguments concerning this point ignore the evidence in this case and are rejected.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

48. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1987).

    
    

49. Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, establishes the following standards for approval of the issuance of a motor vehicle dealer license:

    
    

    The Department shall deny an application for a motor vehicle dealer license in any community or territory where the licensee's presently licensed franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers have complied with licensee's agreements and are providing adequate representation in the community or territory for such licensee. The burden of proof in showing inadequate representation shall be on the licensee.

    
    

    GM has not argued in this case that the Jacksonville MDA Chevrolet dealers are not complying with licensee agreements. Nor was such a deficiency proved by GM. Accordingly, the issue to be decided in this case is whether existing dealers are "providing adequate representation in the community or territory "

    
    

50. The terms "community or territory" are not specifically defined by statute or rule. GM has presented proof to support a conclusion that the Territory constitutes the relevant "community or territory."

    
    

51. Neither Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, nor case law, provides that the relevant "community or territory" in this case is the same as the Jacksonville MDA or any other area identified by Dealer Agreements. The evidence presented in this case failed to prove that Dealer Agreements should control the question of what the proper "community or territory" is. See Bill Kelley Chevrolet, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). See also Seacrest Cadillac, Inc. and General Motors Corporation v. Larry Dimmitt Cadillac, Inc., Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 88-2252, Final

    Order dated May 15, 1989, and Ed Morse Chevrolet of Seminole, Inc. and General Motors Corporation v. Jim Quinlan Chevrolet, Inc., Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 88-3532. Dealer Agreements define the contractual arrangement of GM and its dealers. They do not control the application of Florida law.

    
    

52. The evidence also failed to prove that the difference between GM's identification of AGSSA 6 during the formal hearing as compared to its identification during its 1987 survey controls or affects the determination of the proper "community or territory" in this case.

    
    

53. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the Territory is an appropriate "community or territory" for purposes of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, and this case.

    
    

54. The Florida First District Court of Appeal has held that the "community or territory" may comprise an "identifiable plot not yet cultivated, which could be expected to flourish if given the attention which the others in their turn received. . . ." Bill Kelly Chevrolet, Inc. v. Calvin, 322 So. 2d 50, 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1976). Inadequacy of representation can be demonstrated either in the relevant community or territory or in an identifiable plot. If there is inadequate representation in the community or territory, there is no need to determine whether an identifiable plot exists. Dave Zinn Toyota, Inc. v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 432 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

    
    

55. The evidence proved that AGSSA 6, as defined during the formal hearing of this case, constitutes an identifiable plot.

    
    

56. The Petitioners in this case had the burden of proving that the Territory or AGSSA 6 have been receiving inadequate representation by existing Chevrolet dealers. Section 320.642, Florida Statutes.

    
    

57. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that AGSSA 6 has received inadequate representation from existing dealers sufficient to justify approval of the license sought in this case.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued approving the application of

Stella to establish a new Chevrolet dealership at 1180 South Blanding Boulevard, Orange Park, Clay County, Florida.

DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.

LARRY J. SARTIN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1990.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

GM and Roberts and Nimnicht have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted.

GM's Proposed Findings of Fact

Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection

1 3-7.

2 12.

3 8-9 and 13.

4 19.

5 22.

6 23.

7 24.

8 25.

9 Hereby accepted.

10-11 26.

12 27.

13 29-30.

14 See 44.

15 29.

16 29-30.

17 See 31.

18-19 32.

20 33.

21 34.

22 35.

23 See 36-37.

24 See 39.

25 See 38-40.

26-27 See 44.

1. Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

2. See 43.

3. Hereby accepted.

4. See 44.

whether there is a better way for GM to achieve greater representation through the existing dealers. These proposed findings of fact are not relevant to the issue in this proceeding.

Roberts' and Nimnicht's Proposed Findings of Fact

Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection

1-2 No proposed findings of fact were identified as paragraphs 1 or 2.

3 See 14-17. The last sentence is not relevant to this proceeding.

4 4.

5 See 14-17. The last sentence is not relevant to this proceeding.

6 18.

7-8 Not relevant.

9-10 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

11 Although the second sentence is correct, the weight of the evidence does not support this proposed finding of fact.

12-17 Although there are portions of Dr. Ostlund's and Dr. Matthews' testimony that was acceptable, the overall finding of facts which the Respondent's argue Dr. Ostlund's and Dr. Matthews' testimony proved are rejected in favor of Mr. Anderson's testimony.

18-20 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

1. Although generally true, Chevrolet's penetration in the Territory and AGSSA 6 is still below national averages.

2. Although generally true, this proposed finding of fact does not prove the ultimate facts it is suggested it proves.

3. Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

4. The first sentence is accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence.

25 38.

26 6-7.

27 Hereby accepted.

28-29 Not relevant to this proceeding.

30 See 38. The last two sentences are not relevant.

31-33 Although generally true, not relevant to this proceeding.

34-35 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

36-38 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

1. Not relevant.

2. Not relevant or supported by the weight of the evidence.

41-42 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

43-44 Although generally true, the conclusion reached by the Respondents is not supported by the weight of the evidence.

45-48 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

49--50 Although partially true, the conclusion reached by the Respondents is not supported by the weight of the evidence.

51 Although GM did make such an argument, it was not a "fallback position." Nor was the argument "unavailing."

52-53 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 21.

54 Not relevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence.

55-59 See 21. Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

1. Summary of GM position or not supported by the weight of the evidence.

2. Does not prove the position advanced by the Respondents based upon the weight of the evidence.

62-68 Although partially true, the conclusions reached by the Respondents are not supported by the weight of the evidence.

69 Hereby accepted.

70-71 Although partially true, the conclusions reached by the Respondents are not supported by the weight of the evidence.

72-73 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

74-78 Although partially true, the conclusions reached by the Respondents are not supported by the weight of the evidence.

79 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

80-89 The conclusions reached by the Respondents based upon regression analysis were not supported by the weight of the evidence.

90-101 Although these proposed findings of fact may be generally true, the issue in this case is not whether there is a better way for GM to achieve greater representation through the existing dealers. These proposed findings of fact are not relevant to the issue in this proceeding.

102 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

103-113 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although parts of these findings of fact were proved, the conclusion that the Respondents' argue should be reached ignores the reality of the evidence presented.

114-116 Although partially true, the conclusions reached by the Respondents are not supported by the weight of the evidence.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety

and Motor Vehicles

Room B-439, Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500

William Kelley, Esquire David Brown, Esquire

55 East Monroe Street Suite 4620

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Dean Bunch, Esquire

101 North Monroe Street Suite 900

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Edward W. Risko, Esquire Office of General Counsel General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 48232

Stephen J. Calvacca, Esquire Vasilis C. Katsafans, Esquire Post Office Box 1873

Orlando, Florida 32802

Louis H. Anders, Jr., Esquire

D. Frank Davis, Esquire Joseph W. Letzer, Esquire Robert H. Rutherford, Esquire Burr & Forman

3000 Southtrust Tower

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Highway Safety

and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500

Dealer License Section Room A310

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500

Docket for Case No: 88-003099

Orders for Case No: 88-003099