The Issue The issue is whether GMC Truck Division of General Motors Corporation is receiving adequate representation in the community or territory where General Motors proposes to add an additional dealer.
Findings Of Fact The Relevant Community or Territory Coral Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc. ("Coral") seeks to establish a GMC dealership in the vicinity of Coral Springs, Florida. The location chosen is within an area which GM has identified as the Fort Lauderdale multiple dealer area ("MDA"). The MDA is an area of primary responsibility ("APR") assigned by GM in its Dealer Sales and Service Agreements to more than a single GMC truck dealer. The three protesting dealers, Sheehan, located at Lighthouse Point, King in Fort Lauderdale and Scott in Hollywood, already have been assigned to sell GMC trucks in the Fort Lauderdale MDA. The Fort Lauderdale MDA comprises a large portion of the land area of Broward County, and its boundaries are defined U.S. Census Tracts. GMC truck dealers located in nearby APRs which touch the Fort Lauderdale MDA are known in the industry as "fringe dealers." No fringe dealer makes enough truck sales to consumers who register their vehicles in the Fort Lauderdale MDA so that any fringe dealer could be considered to fall within the community or territory at issue here. Information about the addresses where new car or truck owners register vehicles is available and can then be aggregated by census tracts or other geographic designations such as zip code areas. Nationally, from 62% to 85% of the sales made by each dealer within an MDA are made to persons who register the vehicles within the MDA boundary. General Motors has designated areas surrounding each dealer within an MDA as an "Area of Geographic Sales and Service Advantage" ("AGSSA"). The boundaries of each AGSSA is also defined by census tracts. For the Fort Lauderdale MDA, AGSSA 1 is located in the northeastern county, and has been assigned to Sheehan, in Lighthouse Point. AGSSA 2 is the central portion of the county, its dealer is King, in Fort Lauderdale. AGSSA 3 is in the southern portion of the county, its dealer, Scott, is in Hollywood. Each AGSSA is designed as the area in which its dealer has a convenience advantage over other dealers of the same line-make because of its proximity to consumers residing in that area. The proposed AGSSA to be created for the Coral dealership in the Fort Lauderdale MDA is designated as AGSSA 10 [why this is not designated AGSSA 4 is not clear, but it is also not significant]. Eighty four percent (84%) of customers registering new trucks in the area to comprise AGSSA 10 purchased their GMC trucks from dealers in the Fort Lauderdale MDA. King and Sheehan sell GMC trucks that are registered throughout the MDA. A significant number of consumers go outside the Sheehan AGSSA 1 and King AGSSA 2 to purchase GMC trucks from other MDA dealers. It is undisputed that AGSSAs 1, 2 and 10 should be included within the definition of the relevant community or territory. The dispute centers on whether AGSSA 3 is also part of the community or territory. Eighty-six percent (86%) of all GMC truck registrations in AGSSA 3 were attributable to sales by dealers in the Fort Lauderdale MDA, which includes sales by Scott. Of the registrations which were not generated by sales at Scott, 72% were from other Fort Lauderdale MDA dealers. Thirty-six percent (36%) of those registering GMC trucks in AGSSA 3 (the Scott AGSSA) purchased them from other Fort Lauderdale MDA dealers. AGSSA 3, therefore, does not perform like an isolated, unconnected market. Based on consumer behavior, the Fort Lauderdale MDA, including AGSSAs 1, 2, 3, and 10, perform as a large market shared by multiple dealers. The test commonly used for determining whether markets are so connected as to form an appropriate community or territory to use as a unit of analysis requires that there be cross-sell of at least 30% in both directions. In other words, at least 30% of a dealer's sales should be made to consumers outside of the dealer's AGSSA but inside the MDA, as well as at least 30% of the consumers inside the dealer's AGSSA should buy from the other dealers in the MDA. The Scott dealership, in the southern portion of Broward County, does not fit this classic definition. The Scott data for the most recent year show that for Scott, 33 sales were made to persons registering vehicles in other AGSSA's within the Fort Lauderdale MDA. Scott's nationwide retail sales were 241 units, so only 13.7% of Scott's sales were to persons residing in the Fort Lauderdale MDA, but outside of the Scott AGSSA. On the other hand, as pointed out in the prior Finding, 86% of all registrations in the Scott AGSSA were attributable to dealers in the Fort Lauderdale MDA (including sales made by Scott). Scott does not sell vehicles into the other AGSSAs of the MDA very well, but the customers in the Scott AGSSA are going to other MDA dealers to buy trucks more than they were going to dealers in any other area. On balance, this evidence demonstrates that it is appropriate to include the Scott AGSSA, AGSSA No. 3, in the Fort Lauderdale MDA, and that the Fort Lauderdale MDA defines the community or territory which should be the unit of analysis here. Standard of Evaluation The next question is whether the existing GM dealers are providing "adequate representation" in the relevant community or territory, i.e., the Fort Lauderdale MDA. Since 1988 GMC Truck sales performance in the Fort Lauderdale MDA as a whole and in AGSSA 10 have steadily declined. The most common measure for evaluating the performance of a dealer network is analysis of market penetration data. GMC Truck has a 7.41% market share nationally. National data includes markets where GM is inadequately represented, where it has no dealers at all, and markets where it is represented adequately. National data is, of course, only a starting point. There are variations in consumer preferences for different types of vehicles, and even a dealership network in an area which fails to match the 7.41% market penetration for the nation as a whole may be adequately representing GM in its area, if consumers there tend to prefer different types of vehicles, something which even the most efficient dealer cannot change. Conversely, the dealer or dealership network selling at the national average may be inadequately representing GM if it reaches no more than the national average market penetration in an area where the type of vehicle under consideration is quite popular with the area's consumers. Historically, GMC truck has had greater market penetration in the large pick-up truck, truck wagon and full size panel van segments of the market than in the small pick-up truck segment. In places where large pick-up trucks are popular (agricultural areas, for example, where trucks commonly are used on farms) market conditions are favorable to GM. Taking into account the different popularity of distinct segments of the truck market nationally and in the Fort Lauderdale MDA, GM expects the Fort Lauderdale MDA to achieve a market penetration of 6.45%, which is somewhat lower than the national average for market penetration. Applying the same analyses to AGSSA 10 (the proposed new dealership) shows an expected market penetration of about a 6.04%, or about 80% of the National average. (Anderson testimony, at 31.) These percentages are computed by identifying demand shown by actual consumer purchases in the Fort Lauderdale MDA and in AGSSA 10 for each segment of the product category (i.e., large pick-ups, small pick-ups, and mid-size vans, panel vans, etc.) and applying to those sales the national average GM achieves for each of those segments. This produces an expected number of registrations for the dealer according to the local popularity of each product segment. This standard of comparison is useful because it takes into account unique characteristics of the local market. In 1988 AGSSA 10 achieved 95.5% of its expected penetration. Performance declined to 76.6% of expected penetration by 1990. Analyzing AGSSA 10 based on age distribution of the area's population rather than on truck market segment popularity, shows that GMC truck projects a 7.59% market penetration in AGSSA 10 and in the Fort Lauderdale MDA, which is somewhat higher than the national average and the expected penetration described in Finding 13. When one takes into account income distributions in the area, GM projects a market penetration of 7.41% in the Fort Lauderdale MDA and 7.43% in AGSSA 10, which is quite close to the national average market penetration, and higher than AGSSA 10's projected market penetration based upon product segment popularity. See Finding 13, above. Expected penetration calculations for other markets in Florida show that 17 areas of Florida actually exceed their expected market penetration, which is evidence that the expected penetration calculation produces a reasonable expectation, and has not been manipulated by GM to become an extreme standard which dealers could not actually meet. Sheehan, in AGSSA 1 had sales equal to almost 150% of its expected penetration in 1990. It is significant that in census tracts within the Fort Lauderdale MDA that meet or exceed the expected penetration, based on product segment popularity, the average distance of the purchasing consumer from the nearest dealer is 3.4 miles. This confirms that convenience of dealer location affects consumers' purchasing decisions in an important way. Consumers in AGSSA 10 are, on average, now 8.7 miles from the nearest GMC Truck dealer. This increased distance is a very persuasive explanatory factor for the low sales in AGSSA 10 now, which fall below expected market penetration. The expert for the protesters, Dr. Mizerski, challenged GM's use of national averages to assess dealer performance in AGSSA 10 and the Fort Lauderdale MDA. Dr. Mizerski would have used as the standard for assessing the adequacy of representation of the GMC truck products by the protesting dealers market penetration in the State of Florida, on the theory that the State of Florida data more closely matches AGSSA 10 and the Fort Lauderdale MDA than national data does. This theory has some initial appeal, but it fails to take into account the question of whether Florida itself has a disproportionate share of inadequately represented markets. This could come from the substantial growth in Florida in recent years. Florida falls below the national average, and below 34 states in the ratio of GMC Truck dealers to all other dealers. More than half the Florida markets have penetration below that expected based on product segment popularity, which is an indication that Florida has a disproportionate share of inadequately represented markets. There is no proof that the number of sale points (i.e., dealerships) has increased in proportion as Florida's population has increased. (See Finding 30, below, as to Broward County). If market penetration for GMC truck products in Florida is lower than the national average not because of unique characteristics of the Florida market, but because of network inadequacies, it makes no sense to use that inadequate network as the standard for evaluating the adequacy of dealer performance. On balance, the expected penetration standard advocated by GM based on product segment popularity is more persuasive than the "actual penetration" standard advocated by Dr. Mizerski. The penetration achieved in AGSSA 10 in 1990 was only 4.63%, which is well below the expected penetration of 6.04%, the national average of 7.41%, the Florida average of 5.8%, and the Florida MDA average of 5%. It began to fall below expected penetration in 1988 and performance has declined since then. Performance in the Fort Lauderdale MDA as a whole was also below expected penetration in 1989 and 1990. If lease registrations are included within the definition of the retail market, the figures are essentially the same. Consumer lease transactions are not distorting performance data. All Fort Lauderdale MDA dealers have not had trouble meeting expected penetration projections. The performance by Sheehan in AGSSA 1 is almost 150% of its expected penetration. Existing dealers have not been able to penetrate the market in AGSSA 10 adequately from their current locations. The most likely cause of the low penetration is the lack of a GMC Truck dealership in the geographic area. Market Characteristics The three existing dealers are located in what was the densely populated eastern or coastal half of Broward County in 1980. The Broward population has grown significantly from 1980 through 1990 in the western half of the Fort Lauderdale MDA, especially near the proposed location for the Coral dealership. The population in AGSSA 10 rose nearly 200,000 from 1970 to 1980, and rose 129,000 from 1980 to 1990. The 1990 population of 357,958 is about nine times the 1970 population, and twice the 1980 population. There have been similar increases in the number of households and an observable increase in household density in western Broward. This population growth in AGSSA 10 should continue into the future, reaching an estimated 530,554 within the next 10 years. This growth rate is five times greater than that of Broward County as a whole, which itself is growing at twice the national rate. Despite the significant increase in population in AGSSA 10 and in the western two thirds of AGSSA 3, there is no local GMC truck dealer to serve this growing population. The growth has not been limited to AGSSA 10. The entire Fort Lauderdale MDA had grown in terms of population, household and driving age population during the same period. Each AGSSA in the Fort Lauderdale MDA had population increases and increases in the number of households both in absolute numbers and on a percentage basis from 1970 to 1980. AGSSA 10 had the largest percentage increases (500% in population, 600% in households), although the entire Fort Lauderdale MDA grew very significantly. From 1980 to 1990 the population of AGSSA 10 grew 56.24% and households grew 66.66% and it became the second largest AGSSA in Fort Lauderdale MDA. The population of AGSSA 1 grew 10.92% and 19% in number of households during 1980-1990. AGSSA 3 increased 22.58% in population and 28.48% in households. AGSSA 2 population remained basically stable (decreasing by about 1.84%) and the number of households increased only moderately, 5.33%. The very significant growth in the Fort Lauderdale MDA and in AGSSA 10 has two implications. It has offered greater opportunities for sales of GMC trucks and also highlights the need for expansion of the dealer network so that dealers will be conveniently located to the new residents of the western areas of Broward County. AGSSA 10 currently holds strong prospects for additional sales due to its household incomes. Sales potential is better predicted by a household's income than by individual income. Areas of average household incomes below $15,000 generate few new vehicle sales, while household incomes of greater than $15,000 have significant potential for new vehicle sales. The average household income in AGSSA 10, and throughout the entire Fort Lauderdale MDA, are predominately of middle and upper income levels. Only one census tract in AGSSA 2 and one in AGSSA 3 have household income levels of below $15,000. The employment figures in the decade from 1980 to 1990 in Broward County are consistent with its population growth. The increases in employment and real income in Broward County have been significantly higher than those of the United States as a whole, and Broward's rate of unemployment has been lower. This economic strength is predicted to continue throughout the next decade. These facts indicate that the large growth in the Fort Lauderdale MDA and in AGSSA 10 is of a type likely to provide significant opportunities for sales of new GMC Trucks. As the population increased, light truck registrations have increased too. From 1982-1990, retail light truck registrations in the Fort Lauderdale MDA increased 112%, and in AGSSA 10 increased 213%. These increases in population, households, income and employment also point to an increased potential for traffic congestion in areas where current dealers are located, as individuals use the road networks to travel to and from work. Providing convenience to consumers by locating new dealerships in areas experiencing growth is important. See Findings 15 and 24. Areas which experience rapid development can outgrow the ability of the dealer network to provide adequate service to potential customers. The Fort Lauderdale MDA offers more sales opportunity per existing GMC truck dealer than all but three markets in Florida. Even with the proposed additional dealer, the opportunity per dealer would remain higher than that available in 39 other Florida markets. Merely to increase dealers in proportion to increases in the number of households, an additional dealer should have been added as long ago as in 1983, and another likely will be needed by 1995 in the Fort Lauderdale MDA. Based on GMC's experience over the years, the existing dealer network cannot continue to expand to fulfill the needs of Broward's increased population and especially the population of the Fort Lauderdale MDA. A dealer network designed to produce more than 225 expected GMC Truck registrations per dealer fails to achieve the minimum expected registrations 86% of the time. Thus, to have a reasonable chance of meeting expected market penetration, the network should not exceed a critical size of 225 expected GMC Truck registrations per dealership. This 225 registration goal is not a measure of total sales at a dealership. GMC Trucks are sold from dealerships which also sell other GM lines. The 225 registrations applies only to GMC Truck products. In the absence of the proposed new dealer in AGSSA 10, the GMC Truck network is configured to expect 365 registrations per dealer, which is much above critical optimum design capacity of 225. The Fort Lauderdale MDA simply has grown too large for a three dealer network. Appropriate planning by GM requires redesigning the network to allow for at least four and as many as five dealers. Perhaps the most telling facts are those showing selling success at distances. The existing dealers' market penetration is strongest close to their dealership locations, but declines as the distance from the dealerships increase. This makes intuitive sense. Sheehan has been able to meet or exceed the expected penetration within four miles of its dealership and has only moderate impact on GMC truck sales performance at distances near the proposed location for Coral in AGSSA 10. King does not penetrate the market significantly beyond four miles from its dealership, and has even less impact on GMC truck penetration at the proposed location, which is 10 miles away from King. Scott is not penetrating the market significantly at a distance, achieving only a 3/10 of one percent of its sales at a distance equal to that of the proposed new Coral dealership. Because there is no dealer in AGSSA 10, potential customers residing there are 8.7 miles from the nearest GMC truck dealer, on average. This is almost three times the average distance in AGSSA 1 (2.8 miles), twice the distance in AGSSA 2 (3.5 miles), and 2 and 1/2 miles farther than in AGSSA 3. If the proposed new dealership is established in AGSSA 10, convenience is improved to 4.1 miles on the average, which still is not as good as that provided in AGSSAs 1 and 2. Of course, the convenience GM offers to consumers residing in AGSSAs 1, 2 and 3 remains the same whether or not a new dealer is added in AGSSA 10. Other manufacturers of light trucks offer higher degrees of convenience to residents of AGSSA 10, which places GM at a competitive disadvantage. Performance of GMC truck in AGSSA 10 fell below minimum expected penetration in 1988 (see Finding 13). That year a light truck competitor, Dodge, established a dealership there. GMC truck performance has continued to decline in the area as other light truck manufacturers established representation in the area in 1989 (Id.). Based upon their distance from AGSSA 10 consumers, the existing Fort Lauderdale dealers are unable to overcome the convenience disadvantage they face in attracting consumers residing in AGSSA 10, and consequently have been unable to provide adequate inter-brand competition. This is partially the result of the design of Broward County roadways, which carry traffic better north-south than east-west. The problem is inherent in the current design of the GM sales network, and the solution is to add a GMC truck dealer in AGSSA 10 to improve convenience to consumers. Based on previous experience, this improvement in convenience should result in increased efficiency and additional sales. Impact on Existing Dealers GM computes a gross registration loss, which is the number of registrations which would raise each area within the MDA to the expected penetration level (see Finding 13). This is a conservative measure of possible additional sales because it is based upon the expected penetration, which is a minimum standard, not the maximum number of sales which might be achieved by effective dealers such as Sheehan. For 1990, the gross registration loss for GMC trucks in the Fort Lauderdale MDA was 295 units, which was mostly concentrated in AGSSA 10, and in the western 2/3 of AGSSA 3. If the proposed Coral dealership had been operating in 1990, and if it had performed at the average of the performance levels of the existing Sheehan, King and Scott dealerships, it would have produced a total of 313 registrations within a 20 miles radius of the dealership, which includes some areas beyond the boundary of the Fort Lauderdale MDA. This is 18 registrations more than the gross registration loss in the entire Fort Lauderdale MDA. Computed on the same basis, sales to the more relevant group of persons registering vehicles in the Fort Lauderdale MDA would have been 286 sales. This shows a new dealer in AGSSA 10 could theoretically make 286 sales without supplanting a single sale from existing dealers in the MDA. Moreover, in 1990 151 sales were made to persons who registered the vehicles within the Fort Lauderdale MDA from sales by dealers outside the Fort Lauderdale MDA. These sales represent additional potential sales to be captured by the three existing dealers.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the application to establish the GMC Truck dealership at Coral Oldsmobile be granted. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of October 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 22nd day of October 1992.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Jessica E. Varn, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice Of Withdrawal of Proposed Dealer Agreement from Consideration by Respondents and Motion to Dismiss as Moot, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this AY day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this 4 day of May, 2013. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jdc Copies furnished: Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough, LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 dean.bunch@nelsonmullins.com John W. Forehand, Esquire South Motors Automotive Group 16165 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33157 john.forehand@southmotors.net David Seymour Leibowitz, Esquire Braman Management Association 2060 Biscayne Boulevard, 2"! Floor Miami, Florida 33137 davidl|@bramanmanagement.com Richard N. Sox, Esquire Bass Sox Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 rsox@dealerlawyer.com Jessica E. Varn Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. SOUTH MOTOR COMPANY OF DADE COUNTY, d/b/a SOUTH MOTORS BMW, Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., Respondent. a a aU OOOO ee Oe eee Case No. Case No. Case No. 12-3385 12-3386 12-3387 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 12-3389 SARASOTA AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a BMW OF SARASOTA BERT SMITH OLDSMOBILE, INC., d/b/a BERT SMITH INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL EUROCARS, INC., d/b/a CAPITAL BMW IMPORT CITY, INC., d/b/a QUALITY BMW REEVES IMPORT MOTORCARS, INC., Respondents. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, _ Petitioner, vs. Case No. 12-3390 BRAMAN MOTORS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN BMW PALM BEACH IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN MOTORCARS, Respondents. ORDER CLOSING FILES AND RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION This case came before the undersigned on the Petitioner's Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Dealer Agreement from Consideration by Respondents and Motion to Dismiss as Moot, filed January 29, 2013, and the undersigned being fully advised, it is, therefore, ORDERED that: 1. The final hearing scheduled for May 13 through 17, 2013, is canceled. 2. The files of the Division of Administrative Hearings are closed. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. DONE AND ORDERED this llth day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. aw JESSICA E. VARN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John W. Forehand, Esquire South Motors Automotive Group 16165 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33157 john. forehand@southmotors.net Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley, and Scarborough LLP Suite 202 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South Tallahassee, Florida 32312 dean.bunch@nelsonmullins.com David Seymour Leibowitz, Esquire Braman Management Association 2nd Floor 2060 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 davidl@bramanmanagement.com Richard N. Sox, Esquire Bass Sox Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 rsox@dealerlawyer.com STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, v8. Case No. 12-3385 SOUTH MOTOR COMPANY OF DADE COUNTY, d/b/a SOUTH MOTORS BMW, Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 12-3386 POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a Vista BMW of Pompano Beach, Respondent. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. . Case No. 12-3387 POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a Vista BMW of Coconut Creek, Respondent. Filed January 29, 2013 8:53 AM Division of Administrative Hearings BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. SARASOTA AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a BMW OF SARASOTA; BERT SMITH OLDSMOBILE, INC., d/b/a" BERT SMITH INTERNATIONAL; CAPITAL EUROCARS, INC., d/b/a CAPITAL BMW; IMPORT CITY, INC., d/b/a QUALITY BMW; and REEVES IMPORT MOTORCARS, INC., Respondents. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Petitioner, vs. BRAMAN MOTORS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN BMV, and PALM BEACH IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a BRAMAN MOTORCARS, Respondents. Case No. 12-3389 Case No. 12-3390 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED DEALER AGREEMENT FROM CONSIDERATION BY RESPONDENTS AND MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT Comes now BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA") and notifies the Administrative Law Judge that it has withdrawn its notice to Respondents concerning the proposed dealer agreement which is the subject of this proceeding. withdrawal of notice, BMW NA moves to dismiss this matter as moot. motion, BMW NA states: As a result of this In support of its 1. On July 17, 2012, BMW NA notified Respondents of its intent to offer them the superseding/merged BMW Center Agreement for BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks ("the Merged Agreement"), which was proposed to supersede, modify and replace the existing BMW Dealer Agreement for BMW passenger cars and the existing BMW SAV Center Agreement for BMW light trucks (collectively "the Existing Agreements"). 2. Respondents filed complaints with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ("DHSMV"), contesting the terms of the proposed Merged Agreement. These complaints were transferred by the DHSMV to the Division of Administrative Hearings. 3. On January 29, 2013, BMW NA, by letters attached hereto as Exhibit A, notified Respondents, as follows: BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA") hereby withdraws its notice, transmitted to you on July 17, 2012, with respect to the superseding/merged BMW Center Agreement (‘Agreement’) for BMW passenger cars and BMW light trucks. You and your successors may remain on your current forms of: dealer agreements: the BMW Dealer Agreement for BMW passenger cars (‘Old Agreement’) and the BMW SAV Center Agreement for BMW light trucks (‘SAV Center Agreement') or sign the Agreement which was offered to you, at any time in the future. 4. Inasmuch as BMW NA has withdrawn the July 17, 2012 notice that entitled Respondents to file their protests, and confirmed to Respondents that they and their successors', have the option to remain on the Existing Agreements unless, at any time in the future, they elect to sign the Merged Agreement, Respondents’ protests should now be dismissed as moot. ' Motor vehicle dealerships, and equity interests therein, are transferable to buyers as provided in Section 320.643, Florida Statutes. 3 Respectfully submitted, Lh. bL Dean Bunch dean.bunch@nelsonmullins.com C. Everett Boyd, Jr. everett. boyd@nelsonmullins.com Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Blvd., S., Suite 202 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Telephone: (850)907-2505 Attorneys for BMW of North America, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing was served by electronic transmission, this at day of January, 2013, upon the following: | Jennifer Clerk, Agency Clerk clark. jennifer@hsmv.state.fl.us Dept. of Highway Safety Neil Kirkman Bldg., Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, FL 32399 John W. Forehand, Esq. john. forehand@southmotors.net 16165 South Dixie Highway Miami, FL 33157 Richard N. Sox, Esq. rsox@dealerlawyer.com Nicholas A. Bader, Esq. nbader@dealerlawyer.com 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, FL 32308 David Leibowitz, Esq. davidl@bramanmanagement.com Timothy Grecsek, Esq. timothyg@bramanmanagement.com Braman Management Association 2060 Biscayne Bivd., Second Floor Miami, FL 33137 ~ Attorney
Findings Of Fact Burruss is a licensed and franchised American Motors dealer. Burruss has been the sole AMC dealer in the Tarpon-West Pasco County area since 1960. Burruss is in compliance with its franchise agreement with American Motors Sales Corporation. Both Burruss and New Port are located on U.S. Highway 19, a distance of six miles from each other. U.S. Highway 19 is the only major north-south thoroughfare in the Tarpon-West Pasco area. Portions of U.S. Highway 19 have been improved in the past years so that much of the highway is six-laned in the Tarpon-West Pasco area; the unimproved portions of the highway are four-laned. The recent improvements to U.S. Highway 19 in the Tarpon-West Pasco area have improved the traffic flow along U.S. Highway 19. (Findings 1 through 6 are contained in the Prehearing Stipulation.) Burruss is located in Tarpon Springs, which is in the northernmost part of Pinellas County. New Port is located in New Port Richey, which is in Pasco County. There is presently no AMC dealer in Pasco County. The closest AMC dealer to the north of Burruss his in Brooksville, some 35 miles to the north. The AMC dealers in the area are in Tampa, some 27 miles south of New Port Richey; in Clearwater, some 25 miles south of New Port Richey; and Burruss in Tarpon Springs, some six miles south of the proposed location. New Port has been a franchised Lincoln Mercury automobile dealer for three and a half years and is fully qualified to operate the proposed franchise. New Port has agreed to build a 1600 square foot showroom, to have mechanics factory-trained, and to spend in excess of $41,000 in advertising the AMC products during its first year of operation. It has also agreed to maintain a 60-day supply of automobiles in stock. Pasco County has been one of the fastest growing Florida counties in the past ten years, with most of this growth in the western part of the county near U.S. 19. In 1970 Pasco County had a population of 76,000, which increased to 193,643 in 1980 (Exhibit NP-1). In 1981 a study was conducted in the Pasco County area to determine if there was an open point in this area. A copy of this report was submitted as Exhibit NP-2. From this study AMC determined that the area previously serviced by Burruss should be divided into two areas with the southern area comprising the areas containing the zip codes of Tarpon Springs, Crystal Beach, Holiday, Ozone, and Palm Harbor. This is designated the new Tarpon Springs area. All of these communities are in Pinellas County except Holiday, which is in Pasco County. The northern area, which comprises west Pasco County and is the area in which it is contended that AMC is inadequately represented, includes the zip codes for New Port Richey, Aripeka, Elfers, Odessa, and Port Richey. After obtaining the results of this study, American Motors Sales Corporation solicited dealers in this area to apply for an AMC franchise. Burruss became an AMC dealer in 1960, a Jeep dealer in 1970, and a Renault dealer in 1979. Burruss also sells Datsun vehicles, the sale of which runs 25 to 30 percent, by number of units, above its sales of the AMC-Jeep- Renault line, despite the fact that a competing Datsun dealer is located in Pasco County approximately three miles north of Burruss on U.S. 19. During the past ten years ten major shopping malls or plazas have been built in the New Port Richey-West Pasco area, the number of banks or savings and loan institutions have grown from ten to more than 65, and six new car dealerships have been established, to bring the total to nine. Burruss' sales of AMC vehicles reached a peak of 200 per year in 1975 and have steadily declined since that time. Cross-sales figures show that from 45 percent to 75 percent of the AMC-Jeep-Renault vehicles sold in the New Port Richey area are sold by dealers other than Burruss. Of the three AMC dealers in Pinellas County, Burruss has consistently sold the fewest vehicles. Since the population has been greater in the service area of the other two AMC dealers in Pinellas County, this lower rate would be expected. However, Burruss sales have not kept pace with the population growth in the New Port Richey-West Pasco area. In 1977 AMC automobiles accounted for 1.8 percent of domestic new car sales in this Central Florida district, 2.6 percent of the sales in the Tarpon Springs area, and 1.7 percent of the sales in the New Port Richey area. In 1982 AMC automobiles accounted for 1.4 percent of the district sales, 1.0 percent of the Tarpon Springs area sales, and 0.9 percent of the New Port Richey area sales. In 1977 Jeep automobiles accounted for 14.1 percent of the four-wheel drive vehicle sales in the Central Florida district, 13.5 percent of the sales in the Tarpon Springs area, and 13.8 percent of the sales in the New Port Richey area. In 1982, Renault vehicles accounted for 1.4 percent of the district sales, 1.0 percent of the Tarpon Springs area sales, and 0.5 percent of the New Port Richey area sales. Thus, while AMC penetration in the Tarpon Springs area is comparable to district penetration (although Tarpon Springs penetration seems to be declining), the penetration in the New Port Richey area is well below the district average. Not only has Burruss spent less on advertising than other dealers, but also it has not maintained a 60-day supply of vehicles based on "planning potential." (A minimum estimated number of sales a dealer should make in a year.) Based on the planning potential for the combined Tarpon Springs and New Port Richey areas, Burruss should stock 14 AMC, 10 Jeep, and 36 Renault vehicles. As of January 31, 1982, Burruss had in stock 8 AMC, 3 Jeep and 17 Renault vehicles. AMC consistently allots Burruss more vehicles than it purchases. AMC has received more complaints directly from customers in the West Pasco service area about the products they purchased, but not necessarily from Burruss, than from other service areas in the same district. This is indicative that insufficient attention is paid to providing warranty services in the area by the franchised dealer. That a separate market area in Pasco County exists and has been recognized by several other automobile manufacturers was admitted by Herman Burruss, the principal stockholder of Burruss Motor Company, who was the chief operations officer for Burruss for some 45 years until approximately five years ago when he turned the job over to his son and retreated into semi retirement.
The Issue Whether the proposed dealership should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On August 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 31, a Notice of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of Less than 300,000 Population was published. The notice provided that Vento North America, LLC, intended to allow the establishment of H. Long Investments Corp. d/b/a Tropical Scooters of Vero, as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Qianjaing Motorcycle Group Corp. (QINJ) at 4901 North U.S. Highway 1, Unit J, Vero Beach (Indian River County), Florida. On August 12, 2008, the Respondent timely filed a protest of the establishment of the Petitioner's dealership and represented that 25 percent of its retail sales were within a 20-mile straight line distance of the proposed dealership during any 12-month period out of the 36-month period immediately preceding the filing of the protest. Based upon the Petitioner's evidence, its proposed dealership location is not less than 21.51 miles from the Respondent's dealership. The Respondent did not establish that any of its sales are within 20 miles of the proposed dealership. The Respondent did not establish that it currently markets any motorcycle to be sold by the proposed dealership. More specifically, the Respondent did not offer evidence that it has an agreement for the same line-make vehicle to be sold by the proposed dealer. Vento North America, the distributor of the motorcycle brand/model to be sold at the proposed dealership, did not attend the hearing. Notice of the formal hearing was provided to all parties of record at their addresses of record. The Respondent did not timely contest the location, date, or time for the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by the Respondent and approving the dealership proposed by this Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Electra Theodorides-Bustle, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Jim Buchheit Best Buy Vehicles, Inc. 3525 South US Highway 1 Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Heidi S. Long H. Long Investments, Corp. Tropical Scooters of Vero 4901 North US highway 1, Unit J Vero Beach, Florida 32967 Alma Gonzalez Vento North America 6190 Cornerstone Court E, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92121
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the existing franchised Infiniti dealers who register new motor vehicle retail sales or leases are not providing adequate representation of the Infiniti line-make in the community or territory in which Respondent Nissan North American, Inc. ("Infiniti"), intends to establish Respondent M10 Motors, Inc., d/b/a Infiniti of Coral Gables, Inc. ("M10"), as a dealer for the sale and service of Infiniti vehicles, such that the license granting approval to establish M10 should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Parties, Notice, and Standing Respondent Infiniti is a distributor of Infiniti brand vehicles and products2/ and is a "licensee" as defined in section 320.60(8). Respondent M10 is the proposed Infiniti brand motor vehicle dealership whose establishment in Coral Gables, Florida, is at issue in this case. Petitioner South Motors is a "motor vehicle dealer"3/ as that term is defined in section 320.60(11)(a). South Motors is engaged in the business of selling Infiniti brand vehicles and products from its dealership facility located at 16195 South Dixie Highway, Palmetto Bay, Florida. On April 4, 2014, the DHSMV published two notices in the Florida Administrative Register, one announcing Infiniti's intent to allow the establishment of M10 as an Infiniti dealership with additional service facilities at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida ("14-2069 Notice"); and the other announcing Infiniti's intent to allow the establishment of M10 as a dealership for the sale and service of Infiniti vehicles at 2701 Le Jeune Road, Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida ("14-2070 Notice"). As more fully discussed below, the language of these notices makes abundantly clear that M10 is not seeking to establish an independent service-only dealership on Ponce de Leon Boulevard, but is instead proposing to establish a service location to be operated in conjunction with the sale and service intake facility to be located on Le Jeune Road.4/ South Motors is located within 12.5 miles of both the proposed M10 sales and service dealership location at 2701 Le Jeune Road and the proposed service location at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard. The Existing Dealerships in Southeast Florida South Motors and Warren Henry Infiniti ("Warren Henry") currently are the only Infiniti dealers in Miami-Dade County. Warren Henry is located at 20850 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, in northeastern Miami-Dade County near the Broward County line. It opened in 1989 and has been in business at its current location for over 25 years. Warren Henry has not protested the proposed establishment of M10. South Motors5/ is located in Palmetto Bay, in southern Miami-Dade County. It opened shortly after Warren Henry, and has been in business at its current location for approximately 25 years. Warren Henry and South Motors are approximately 26 air miles and 28.5 drive miles apart. The area between Warren Henry and South Motors is urban, heavily populated, and characterized by heavy traffic congestion. Miami Gardens, North Miami Beach, Miami Beach, Miami, Coral Gables, Cutler Bay, and Kendall are among the communities located between Warren Henry and South Motors. There is no Infiniti dealership located between Warren Henry and South Motors. Recent data show that there are approximately 18,000 competitive luxury vehicle registrations6/ per year in the Coral Gables area. This is approximately three times the number of competitive registrations in the average primary market area ("PMA")7/ throughout the U.S., making the Coral Gables area one of the top three luxury vehicle markets in the United States. At approximately 10.6 air miles and 11.2 drive miles away, South Motors would be the closest existing Infiniti dealership to the proposed M10 dealership. At approximately 15.6 air miles and 17.3 drive miles away from the proposed M10 dealership, Warren Henry would be the next closest existing dealership to the M10 dealership. In March 2013, notice was published that Infiniti intended to relocate Warren Henry approximately five miles to the southeast of its current location, still within its own PMA. That proposed relocation has not been withdrawn, but as of the final hearing in this proceeding, Warren Henry had not secured a lease on the property at the site of the proposed relocation, and the status of its relocation remains uncertain.8/ There are three Infiniti dealerships in Broward County: Lauderdale Infiniti, Sawgrass Infiniti, and Infiniti of Coconut Creek. Lauderdale Infiniti and Sawgrass Infiniti are 10.7 air miles and 18.7 drive miles apart; Lauderdale Infiniti and Infiniti of Coconut Creek are 10.3 air miles and 13.3 drive miles apart; and Sawgrass Infiniti and Infiniti of Coconut Creek are 8.0 air miles and 10.5 drive miles apart. Lauderdale Infiniti is approximately 28.1 air miles and 31.5 drive miles from the proposed M10 dealership.9/ Sawgrass Infiniti is approximately 31.0 air miles and 38.6 drive miles from the proposed M10 dealership. Infiniti of Coconut Creek is approximately 36.6 air miles and 38.4 drive miles from the proposed M10 dealership. The Community or Territory Before determining whether the existing franchised Infiniti dealers are not providing adequate representation of the Infiniti line-make,10/ the pertinent community or territory ("comm/terr")——that is, the relevant geographic area for purposes of such determination——must be identified. The term "community or territory" is not defined in Florida Statutes, so the comm/terr particular to establishing the dealership at issue must be determined on a case-by-case basis. In determining the boundaries of the comm/terr, one factor considered is a dealer's area of responsibility designated in the manufacturer's franchise agreement. Specifically, Infiniti enters into a franchise agreement with each motor vehicle dealer of the Infiniti line- make. Pursuant to this agreement, which is titled the "Dealer Sales and Service Agreement" ("Dealer Agreement"), Infiniti designates a geographical area, the "PMA," for the particular dealer. Under the Dealer Agreement, the PMA is the "geographic area which is designated as the Dealer's sales and service responsibility for Infiniti Products in a Notice of Primary Market Area issued by the Seller [Infiniti] to the Dealer." A dealer's PMA is the area, consisting of census tracts, in which that dealer generally is physically closer to customers, so has a geographic advantage over other dealers for sales and service. Under the Dealer Agreement, the dealer is expected to actively and effectively promote, through its own advertising and sales promotion activities, the retail sale of Infiniti line-make vehicles to customers within its PMA. Infiniti uses the PMA as a tool to evaluate the dealer's performance of its sales obligations under the Dealer Agreement. Infiniti expects each dealer to provide adequate representation of the Infiniti line-make within its own PMA. The PMA is not an exclusive sales territory, and dealers are free to sell and service Infiniti products to customers anywhere in the U.S., including in other dealerships' PMAs. Here, Infiniti takes the position that the appropriate comm/terr consists of the so-called "Miami-Dade PMAs," which it collectively refers to as the "Miami-Dade Comm/Terr." The Miami-Dade Comm/Terr consists of the designated PMAs for South Motors Infiniti, Warren Henry Infiniti, and the proposed Coral Gables PMA11/ that will be established for M10. These three PMAs effectively cover the Miami-Dade County area.12/ In support of this position, Infiniti presented the testimony of its expert witness, Sharif Farhat, Vice President of Expert Services for Urban Science Applications, Inc. ("Urban Science"), an automotive industry performance and marketing consulting company. As part of his marketing and performance analysis regarding the Coral Gables open point, Farhat thoroughly researched the sales and customer shopping patterns in the Southeast Florida metropolitan area, which includes Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties. Based on his research and his experience with vehicle markets in the Southeast Florida area, Farhat opined that Miami- Dade County and Broward County constitute separate Infiniti sales markets and that, with only occasional exception, customers in each county shop for vehicles within their own county. Farhat's opinion was based on empirical data showing that South Motors made 96.4 percent of its sales within the Miami-Dade PMAs and Warren Henry made 83.5 percent of its sales within the Miami-Dade PMAs. Further, the data showed that the three Infiniti dealers in Broward County made significantly smaller percentages of their vehicle sales in Miami-Dade County than they did in Broward County. Specifically, Infiniti of Coconut Creek made 10.4 percent of its sales in the Miami-Dade PMAs, Sawgrass Infiniti made 29.5 percent of its sales in the Miami-Dade PMAs, and Lauderdale Infiniti made 33.7 percent of its sales in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. Within the Coral Gables PMA, in-selling by the Infiniti dealers in Broward County amounted to less than 9 percent of each dealer's nationwide sales. The data also show that only very small percentages of customers within Broward County purchase Infiniti vehicles from the Miami-Dade County dealers. From this information, Farhat opined that there is little connectivity between Broward County and the Miami-Dade PMAs, and Broward County and Miami-Dade County comprise separate and distinct motor vehicle sales markets. This is because Broward County and Miami-Dade County are large, congested urban areas, with the dealerships in one county generally separated by considerable distance from those in the other county. Connectivity between customer base and the dealerships is a key factor in determining the comm/terr. Lack of connectivity indicates a separate market area and customer base. Here, Farhat's research showed a lack of connectivity between the customer base in Broward County and the dealerships in Miami-Dade County, due to the considerable drive distances and congested traffic conditions that exist between Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Under these circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect that customers in Broward County would travel substantial distances into Miami-Dade County for vehicle purchase and service, particularly when there are three Infiniti dealerships in Broward County. Likewise, it is not reasonable to expect customers in Miami-Dade County to travel north to Broward County for vehicle purchase and service. It also would be unreasonable for Infiniti to expect its dealers in Miami-Dade and Broward counties to adequately cover and represent the Infiniti brand throughout both counties. These conditions indicate that the Broward County dealerships and Miami-Dade County dealerships are in separate customer markets, and support the conclusion that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is the appropriate comm/terr in this proceeding. South Motors takes the position that the applicable comm/terr is the so-called "Southeast Florida Metro" market, which consists of Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and a very small part of Palm Beach County. In support of this position, South Motors presented the testimony of Joseph Roesner, President of the Fontana Group, Inc., and an expert in local retail automobile industry and dealer performance analysis. In opining that the Southeast Florida Metro market is the appropriate comm/terr, Roesner relied heavily on provisions in the Infiniti dealer franchise agreement stating that when a dealer is located in a metropolitan area in which other authorized Infiniti dealers are located, combined and individual dealer sales performance may be evaluated based on and compared to the sales of Infiniti vehicles within the metropolitan area. He also relied on marketing studies performed by Urban Science for Infiniti in 2008 and 2013 addressing dealer performance focused on the Southeast Metro market. According to Roesner, these dealer agreement provisions and market studies indicate acknowledgement by Infiniti itself that the Southeast Florida Metro market is the appropriate comm/terr.13/ However, Roesner conceded that the dealer franchise agreement is not necessarily determinative of the applicable comm/terr, that the comm/terr is not the same in every case, and that buyer behavior and distance between the customer base and dealerships are relevant to determining the comm/terr. Roesner noted that there is some cross-selling between the Infiniti dealerships in Broward County and customers in Miami-Dade County. However, he recognized that there is significantly more cross-selling in the Miami-Dade County PMAs by South Motors and Warren Henry than by the Broward County dealerships. He acknowledged that this is due, at least in part, to the long distances between the Broward County dealers and the Miami-Dade PMAs. On these bases, Roesner acknowledged that there is merit to considering the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as an appropriate comm/terr in this proceeding. The persuasive evidence shows that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is the appropriate comm/terr in this proceeding. Adequacy of Representation of the Infiniti Line-Make in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr As previously stated, the purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether the existing franchised dealers who register new Infiniti motor vehicle retail sales or leases in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr are not providing adequate representation of the Infiniti line-make within the Comm/Terr. The discussion below addresses the background pertinent to this determination and addresses the statutory factors in section 320.642(2)(b) with respect to this determination. Background Regarding South Motors, Coral Gables Open Point Designation, and Selection of M10 to Fill the Open Point South Motors' dealership is located on several parcels of land in Palmetto Bay.14/ Its main sales and service facility is located at 16591 South Dixie Highway, and it also has an off- site non-visit service facility about half a mile from its main facility, consisting of 16 service bays and 13 vehicle lifts, where heavy mechanical repairs are performed. Additionally, South Motors owns an off-site storage lot where it stores approximately 200 additional new inventory vehicles. South Motors has not experienced any operational difficulties or problems due to operating vehicle service and storage facilities offsite from its main dealership location on South Dixie Highway. Due to its age, South Motors' appearance is outdated and does not comply with the Infiniti Retail Environment Design Initiative ("IREDI") standards. IREDI is an Infiniti design program that sets standards for the appearance of Infiniti dealership facilities, and its purpose is to establish a consistent luxury image that promotes the Infiniti brand to luxury vehicle customers. Recently, South Motors committed to renovating its South Dixie Highway facility to meet the IREDI standards. To that end, Infiniti has committed, pursuant to an IREDI Dealer Participation Agreement, to provide $550,000 to South Motors to enable it to upgrade its dealership facility to IREDI standards. It is reasonable to anticipate that the upgrade of South Motors' facility to IREDI standards will enhance its competitive position in the luxury vehicle market. Even though South Motors is not compliant with IREDI standards, it nonetheless currently performs relatively well when compared to other Infiniti dealers in the southeastern U.S., with a sales effectiveness15/ of slightly over 100 percent. In large measure, South Motors' current satisfactory sales effectiveness level is due to the geographic extent of its PMA, which does not include the area comprised of the Coral Gables area where Infiniti has created the open point.16/ Between 2004 and 2008, South Motors' PMA did encompass a substantial amount of the area encompassed in the Coral Gables open point. During that time, South Motors performed very poorly, with a sales effectiveness of approximately 50 percent. This made South Motors the lowest performing dealership in the eastern U.S. and among the lowest performers in the entire country. At that time, South Motors asserted that its PMA was too large, that it could not adequately serve the Coral Gables area from its Palmetto Bay location, and that it was difficult for customers in Coral Gables to drive to the dealership to purchase vehicles or have them serviced. South Motors also asserted that it would be better positioned to cover the Coral Gables area if it were located further north. Based on a market study performed by Urban Sciences during this timeframe, Infiniti recommended that South Motors relocate approximately five miles north, to the Kendall area, in order to improve its business opportunities, particularly with respect to affording proximity to potential customers in the Coral Gables area.17/ Although South Motors searched for real estate in the Kendall area, it ultimately informed Infiniti that it could not locate any real estate that it considered suitable, and it did not relocate its dealership as recommended. South Motors' performance did not improve, falling to less than 50 percent sales effectiveness——last in the state and the region. In July 2007, Infiniti issued a Notice of Default, informing South Motors that it was in breach of the sales performance obligations under its Dealer Agreement, and giving South Motors a 180-day cure period. South Motors' performance still did not improve. In September 2008, over a year after issuing the Notice of Default, Infiniti sent South Motors a Notice of Termination, informing South Motors that Infiniti intended to terminate its relationship with South Motors due to continued unsatisfactory sales performance within its PMA. In response, South Motors filed a lawsuit against Infiniti, alleging that it was in substantial compliance with its Dealer Agreement and that Infiniti had, unilaterally and without notice, changed the Dealer Agreement by expanding its PMA, making it one of the largest in the nation. South Motors alleged, in part, that its sales effectiveness was adversely affected because the sales effectiveness determination took into account geographic areas in which it could not realistically be expected to compete. South Motors acknowledges that its own PMA previously encompassed a significant portion of the area now designated as the proposed Coral Gables PMA, and that it previously asserted that it was unable to effectively compete in that area. Around this time, Infiniti completed another market study to evaluate the brand's performance and representation in southeast Florida, including the area between Warren Henry and South Motors. Based on this study, Infiniti determined that the existing dealer network was not providing adequate representation of the Infiniti brand or its consumers in this area and decided to establish additional Infiniti representation, specifically in the Coral Gables area. In large measure, the lack of adequate representation is due to the distance and congested traffic conditions between Warren Henry and South Motors. Customers in the Coral Gables area must drive 30 to 45 minutes north or south to reach an Infiniti dealership for sales or service. This substantially decreases consumers' convenient access to the Infiniti brand, and, thus, substantially reduces the likelihood that consumers in the Coral Gables area will shop for or purchase an Infiniti vehicle instead of other competing line-makes. Infiniti also determined that the Coral Gables area presents a significant opportunity for additional sales and servicing of Infiniti vehicles. As previously noted, the data show that there are approximately 18,000 competitive luxury registrations per year in the Coral Gables area, making it one of the top three competitive luxury vehicle markets in the U.S. Other competitive luxury brands, such as Audi, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volvo have established dealerships in the Coral Gables area. Having an Infiniti dealership in Coral Gables would afford Infiniti the opportunity to more effectively compete with these brands within this area, as well as attract luxury vehicle customers who may be cross-shopping at these dealerships. Accordingly, Infiniti declared an open point and designated the Coral Gables PMA, where it now proposes to establish M10. The Coral Gables PMA is substantially comprised of census tracts previously assigned to South Motors, and includes several densely-populated areas, including downtown Miami and the City of Coral Gables. As a result of this carve-out from its PMA, South Motors' PMA was substantially reduced in size, which had the immediate effect of doubling South Motors' sales effectiveness from 50 percent to over 100 percent. This increase was due to removing South Motors' contractual responsibility for representing the Infiniti brand within the census tracts in the Coral Gables area, not because South Motors was selling more vehicles. This significant change in South Motors' sales effectiveness shows that the Coral Gables PMA contains a large number of competitive luxury registrations,18/ and it further evidences that South Motors was not adequately covering the Coral Gables market. Due to the dramatic improvement in South Motors' sales effectiveness, Infiniti rescinded its Notice of Termination. Although South Motors no longer is contractually responsible under the Dealer Agreement for selling vehicles within the area that includes the proposed Coral Gables PMA, and even though South Motors' sales effectiveness immediately and substantially increased due to this area having been carved out of its PMA, South Motors takes the position that the Coral Gables area should not be designated as an open point or assigned to any dealer, but instead should remain "unassigned." This means that this area would not be assigned to any dealer for purposes of that dealer being contractually responsible for selling vehicles within the area. The effect of keeping the Coral Gables census tracts unassigned is that no dealership would be contractually motivated or compelled to maximize sales within these areas, but any dealer could, in effect, "harvest the low hanging fruit" by selling some vehicles to customers within this heavily populated area. Infiniti's Vice President for its East Region, Jeffrey Harris, testified that the opportunity for Infiniti to compete for luxury vehicle sales in the Coral Gables area was far too significant for Infiniti to allow this area to remain unassigned. When Infiniti established the Coral Gables open point, Harris recommended that Infiniti offer the open point to South Motors to give it the opportunity to adequately serve the Coral Gables PMA. This would entail South Motors establishing a dealership within the Coral Gables PMA. South Motors confirmed its interest in filling the Coral Gables open point. In December 2010, Infiniti sent a letter to South Motors confirming that South Motors had been conditionally approved as the dealer candidate for the Coral Gables PMA, stating that South Motors was the exclusive appointee for the proposed dealership for 90 days, and informing South Motors that it needed to provide Infiniti a formal proposal and timeline for the proposed dealership. Shortly before its presumptive appointment expired, South Motors notified Infiniti that it had made substantial progress on a proposal for the dealership, and that it had reviewed and evaluated numerous properties in the Coral Gables area. On this basis, Infiniti extended the time period over which South Motors' would remain the presumptive appointee for the Coral Gables dealership. In July 2011, South Motors and Infiniti met to discuss South Motors' progress toward making a formal proposal for the Coral Gables open point. This meeting was held at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, a former Lincoln-Mercury dealership.19/ South Motors focused on purchasing this site in combination with several nearby properties at a cost of approximately $22.9 million. Infiniti suggested that South Motors may consider reducing this cost by only acquiring the property absolutely necessary to operate the dealership. Over the ensuing months, South Motors repeatedly requested Infiniti's financial assistance for property acquisition, dealership construction, and potential legal costs that may be incurred in defending against protests to the proposed dealership. Infiniti responded that it likely was willing to provide approximately $3 to $5 million in assistance, but that South Motors needed to execute a confidentiality agreement and provide a formal written proposal for the dealership so that Infiniti could evaluate the proposed investment to determine the level of financial support necessary and appropriate based on the specific proposal. South Motors did not sign a form confidentiality agreement. It also did not sign a revised form Infiniti provided that included language stating that South Motors' discussions regarding the proposed Coral Gables dealership could not be disclosed in any litigation, including in any protest to the addition of a dealership in Coral Gables.20/ South Motors did not submit a formal proposal to establish a dealership in the Coral Gables open point because it ultimately determined that such a proposal was not financially feasible for its dealership. Approximately one year after first advising South Motors that it was the preferred dealership candidate for the Coral Gables open point, Infiniti determined that South Motors and Infiniti had reached an impasse. At that point, Infiniti began considering proposals from other interested dealership candidates; nonetheless, South Motors remained the preferred candidate and was free to submit a formal proposal that would be considered along with those submitted by other candidates. South Motors did not submit a formal proposal for the Coral Gables dealership. Infiniti received multiple proposals for the Coral Gables open point and initially selected a professional athlete very well-known in the Coral Gables community to open the dealership. When that candidate was unable to proceed, Infiniti selected Bernardo Moreno as its candidate for the Coral Gables dealership. Moreno has personal and family ties to South Florida. He owns the Collection Auto Group, a group of motor vehicle dealerships located primarily in the northeast and northern U.S. He earned a degree in business administration with a marketing concentration and has worked his entire career in the automobile industry. Over the course of his career, Moreno has acquired and operated automotive and luxury motor vehicle dealerships for a range of line-makes, including Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, Maserati, Aston-Martin, Acura, Buick/GMC, Nissan, Volkswagen, Saab, and Infiniti. Moreno's dealership group has been very profitable and makes hundreds of millions of dollars in sales revenue per year. When Moreno was selected as the dealer for the Coral Gables open point, he and Infiniti were aware of the cost of property in downtown Coral Gables and the potential for a challenge from South Motors. Thus, Moreno requested financial assistance from Infiniti. Moreno and Infiniti entered into a Framework Agreement that contained a confidentiality provision and a schedule for the provision of financial assistance by Infiniti. Pursuant to this schedule, Infiniti committed to provide M10 financial support up to a potential total of $4.4 million, starting with an initial disbursement of $200,000 in September 2014, and periodic payments of up to $120,000 each for the next seven years. These payments were intended to help M10 offset the cost of this proceeding and any appeals, the cost of rent during the pendency of this proceeding and any appeals, and dealership startup costs. The periodic payments to M10 after the dealership opens are not guaranteed, and are contingent on the dealership meeting certain sales, service, and customer satisfaction benchmarks. Under the Framework Agreement, Infiniti also committed to provide M10 a one-time payment of $1 million to assist with the expense of remodeling M10's sales and service intake facility, which will be located at 2701 Le Jeune Road, in the Bacardi Building, an existing office building in Coral Gables. M10 has entered into a long-term lease for its sales and service intake space at the Bacardi Building. M10's sales and service intake facility on Le Jeune Road will be its only contact point with its customers. Due to the high cost and limited availability of property in Coral Gables, this sales and service intake facility will not be a typical suburban-style dealership, but instead will be similar to other luxury vehicle dealerships in Coral Gables such as the Mercedes-Benz dealership next door, and to dealerships in other downtown urban areas, such as in Manhattan, New York. The cost of remodeling the space in the Bacardi Building to suitability for M10's sales and service intake facility will approach that of constructing a new dealership building. M10's sales and service intake facility will consist of the dealership's sales and service reception areas, vehicle showroom, and a range of amenities designed to appeal to luxury vehicle customers. Although the facility will have a service intake and reception area where service customers will drop off and pick up their vehicles, it will not have service bays for the performance of vehicle service onsite. As its offsite service location, M10 has secured a site approximately 0.8 miles away, at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, a former Lincoln-Mercury dealership. This is the same location that South Motors considered as its potential dealership site, had it proceeded to fill the Coral Gables open point. However, rather than purchasing this property as South Motors proposed to do when exploring a Coral Gables dealership, M10 has instead entered into a long-term lease of the site. The Ponce de Leon service location will have 12 to 15 service bays for vehicle service and repair. There will be no Infiniti signage at this location and M10's customers will not visit this location. Customers will drop off and pick up their vehicles at the sales and service intake location at the Bacardi Building and porters will drive the vehicles to and from the Ponce de Leon location for service. It is not uncommon for dealerships in urban markets to have offsite service locations; indeed, South Motors itself has an offsite service location where it performs vehicle repair. M10 currently is paying $71,414 per month for the Bacardi Building and $44,000 per month for the Lincoln-Mercury facility. M10 also plans to lease an offsite vehicle storage lot. Statutory Factors Regarding Adequacy of Representation Impact of the Proposed M10 Dealership on Consumers, Public Interest, Existing Dealers, and Infiniti Impact on Consumers and the Public Interest As discussed above, the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr currently is served by two Infiniti dealers, South Motors and Warren Henry, which are located approximately 26 air miles and 28.5 drive miles apart. The area between Warren Henry and South Motors is urban, heavily populated, and characterized by significant traffic congestion. As previously noted, Miami Gardens, North Miami Beach, Miami Beach, Miami, Coral Gables, Hialeah, Cutler Bay, and Kendall are among the communities located in the area between Warren Henry and South Motors. There is no Infiniti dealership located between Warren Henry and South Motors. Also as discussed above, the sales and service intake location for M10 is proposed to be located at 2701 Le Jeune Road, in Coral Gables, and the service facility will be located approximately 0.8 miles away. At this location, M10 would be located approximately 10.6 air miles and 11.2 drive miles from South Motors, and 15.6 air miles and 17.2 drive miles from Warren Henry. Thus, rather than customers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr driving an average of over 13 miles in congested traffic conditions to reach an Infiniti dealership, the average drive distance would be reduced to an average of approximately seven miles. This would increase convenient access to Infiniti sales and service within the Comm/Terr, and would particularly benefit service customers, who are less likely to travel significant distances for service or parts as compared to customers seeking to purchase a vehicle. The proposed dealership would have extended service hours and would be open for service seven days a week. Its service department would be open overnight, which would allow customers to drop their vehicle off for service, receive a loaner vehicle, and pick up their fully-serviced vehicle the following morning. South Motors claims that the new dealership would not have sufficient parking or onsite inventory storage, so would not enhance customer convenience. Pursuant to lease agreements, M10 has secured 124 parking spaces onsite at the Bacardi Building for the dealership, and pursuant to lease terms, has an option to negotiate the lease of additional spaces within the Bacardi Building. Additionally, if the dealership is approved, M10 intends to secure an offsite storage lot where it can maintain additional inventory, albeit, it is possible that the lot may be some distance from the dealership. Infiniti and M10 acknowledge that it would be preferable for the dealership to have more onsite parking spaces, but it is common for dealerships in downtown areas to have limited onsite parking with additional offsite inventory storage capacity. The evidence establishes that M10 will take the necessary business and operational steps to secure additional parking so that the dealership can operate smoothly, and has plans in place to do so if the dealership is approved. The evidence does not show that the purported shortage of onsite parking spaces significantly detracts from the substantial convenience to customers of having another Infiniti dealership within the Comm/Terr——particularly at a location that will obviate the need to travel an average of 13 miles under heavily congested conditions for Infiniti sales and service. The new dealership also would benefit the public. M10 anticipates hiring approximately 80 full-time and 15 part-time employees, thus increasing employment in the Coral Gables area. M10 would occupy and substantially renovate two facilities that currently are vacant, increasing local tax revenue and improving the community character in the vicinity of the dealership. South Motors asserts, based on an analysis of M10's pro forma, that given the high cost of real estate in Coral Gables, it is unlikely that M10 will be able to operate profitably,21/ and that adding M10 will result in the two existing profitable dealerships also becoming unprofitable. Thus, South Motors reasons, consumers, the existing dealers, and Infiniti all will be negatively affected by the establishment of M10. South Motors' analysis, which projected a loss of between $25,000 and $168,000 in M10's first year of operation, was based on a projection of sales only in the Miami/Dade Comm Terr, not on projected nationwide sales. Further, it assumes a substantially lower profit per vehicle sale than South Motors currently makes, and assumes an owner's salary of $390,000. However, many operating variables, including owner's salary, can be adjusted to enable M10 to operate profitably its first year and still pay an owner's salary of $220,000. Additionally, M10 would be part of Mr. Moreno's highly profitable dealership group, which earns approximately $15 million per year in profit and makes hundreds of millions of dollars in sales revenue each year. Given Mr. Moreno's history of operating successful, profitable dealerships in highly competitive markets for a number of years, it is reasonable to infer that M10 also will operate as a profitable dealership. Impact on Intrabrand and Interbrand Competition The new dealership would enhance intrabrand competition by providing customers an additional competitive option for Infiniti sales and service within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. It also would enhance interbrand competition by adding an Infiniti dealership at a Coral Gables location where many of Infiniti's line-make and model competitors, such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Lexus, Audi, and Volvo, currently operate dealerships in close proximity. The new dealership would add Infiniti as a competitive choice in this area and would provide customers the opportunity to cross-shop Infiniti with these competing brands. Impact on Existing Dealers, Including Financial Impact to South Motors, and on Infiniti In determining the impact of the proposed new dealership on existing dealerships in the comm/terr, a key inquiry is the amount of opportunity that exists for the new dealership to capture sales and service without materially affecting the existing Infiniti dealers. As previously noted, the Coral Gables area is one of the top three luxury vehicle markets in the U.S. The 18,000 competitive luxury registrations per year in this area is three times the number of competitive registrations in the average Infiniti PMA in the U.S. One source of opportunity exists in the shortfall in expected Infiniti sales as compared to other competitive line- make sales within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. As discussed in greater detail below, in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, Infiniti's recent sales performance22/ is at approximately 65 percent of average and in the Coral Gables PMA that number drops to approximately 56 percent of average. If Infiniti's sales performance was raised to average through gaining sales that currently are lost to interbrand competition, this would translate into approximately 1,069 sales of Infiniti vehicles that could be captured by another dealer.23/ Capturing sales lost to Infiniti dealers outside the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr represents another source of business opportunity. These in-sells into the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr currently are made by more distant and less convenient Infiniti dealerships, and likely could be captured with increased marketing, inventory selection, and competition in the Comm/Terr. In 2013, Infiniti dealers outside the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr made 651 sales into the Comm/Terr. When these in- sells are added to the 1,069 sales that would be added through successful interbrand competition if Infiniti's performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr was raised to average, this yields an additional 1,720 sales of Infiniti vehicles available to another Infiniti dealer. To that point, the persuasive evidence shows that had M10 been in business in 2013 and had performed at an average level, it would have made 1,283 sales in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr alone.24/ This estimate does not take into account sales made outside the Comm/Terr.25/ This evidences that the market in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in the Coral Gables PMA, can support another Infiniti dealer without significant negative impact on the existing dealers in the Comm/Terr. Proximity is an important factor in a customer's choice of dealership.26/ South Motors derives over 40 percent of its sales from the area included in the Coral Gables PMA. In part, that is due to South Motors' location in southern Miami-Dade County, with the Atlantic Ocean in relatively close proximity to the east and the Everglades in relatively close proximity to the west. The population center in this part of Miami-Dade County is largely north of South Motors, with a particularly large concentration in the Coral Gables area. Historically, approximately half of South Motors' sales and service business has been derived from customers who reside closer to the location of the proposed new dealership than to South Motors. Based on a proximity analysis performed by its expert, Joseph Roesner, South Motors takes the position that its historic proximity advantage for sales and service necessarily dictates that its future performance will suffer with the addition of the new dealership. Essentially, South Motors asserts that if the new dealership is approved, it will lose its proximity advantage for a substantial portion of its customers, and that as a result, it stands to lose between 20 percent and 40 percent of its business.27/ However, this position erroneously assumes that the number of new vehicle sales is a "fixed pie" and fails to take into account the amount of business opportunity available in the market that currently is not being captured. Mr. Roesner acknowledged that South Motors currently is capturing only 50 percent of the sales available in the Coral Gables area.28/ If capture rate is increased, new vehicle sales would increase, indicating that the "pie" of new vehicle sales business is not fixed. South Motors historically has made over $1 million in annual net profit. Roesner estimated, based on his projected 20 to 40 percent decline in business, that South Motors stands to lose between $1 million and $2 million per year in business and may become unprofitable if the new dealership is approved. Roesner arrived at his estimated 20 to 40 percent decline in South Motors' business based on an analysis of other instances in Florida involving the addition of an Infiniti dealership to an existing dealership network since 2009. He assumed that the existing dealership would capture the same percentage of existing sales after the new dealership is added as it did before the new dealer is added. He then compared the amount of sales the existing dealership made to expected sales before and after addition of the new dealership. Pursuant to this methodology, Roesner determined that the new dealership increased Infiniti's sales in the luxury vehicle market but that some of the new dealership's sales came at the expense of the existing dealerships, and that in each case, the addition of a new dealership reduced the existing dealerships' sales between 7.53 percent and 22.3 percent. Applying this methodology to South Motors, he projected a 23.42 percent decline in sales as a result of adding M10. However, South Motors' projection is based on the flawed assumption, discussed above, that existing dealerships maintain the exact same level of sales performance after the addition of a new dealership as before the addition of that dealership. Roesner acknowledged that a dealership's sales effectiveness can change from year to year, and he did not evaluate how the existing dealerships' sales performance had been trending in prior years. The persuasive evidence showed that in each instance where an existing dealership's sales performance declined after a new dealer was added, the existing dealership's performance already was trending downward due to other factors in the market, before the new dealership was added. Thus, it was erroneous to assume that the decrease in existing dealerships' sales performance projected by South Motors was caused solely by the addition of a new dealership. The persuasive evidence shows that the addition of a new dealership causes, at most, a relatively small decline in existing dealerships' sales performance, and that adding an Infiniti dealership increases brand awareness and performance, even in markets where the Infiniti already performs above average. Again, this evidences that new vehicle sales are not a "fixed pie" in terms of amount available in the market. Thus, South Motors' projection that it stands to lose 20 to 40 percent across all aspects of its business is based on flawed assumptions. In fact, South Motors itself projected a potential 23.42 percent loss in new sales based on these flawed assumptions, and it did not persuasively establish that it will suffer a significant impact to its service or wholesale parts business. Losses to used vehicle or customer pay service that South Motors posits it will experience are not statutorily cognizable in this proceeding, so are not properly counted toward South Motors' asserted loss. Thus, South Motors' projection, based on erroneous assumptions, that it stands to lose $1 million to $2 million in business and likely become unprofitable as a result of the establishment of M10, is not reliable or persuasive. South Motors is part of a large, successful vehicle dealership group in south Florida that has a net working capital and net cash worth of over $8 million, sells approximately 20,000 vehicles, generates nearly a billion dollars in gross revenue per year, and earns between $800,000 and $1.5 million in profit per year. South Motors' Executive Vice President, Jonathan Chariff, testified that South Motors is in a very sound and financially stable position. In sum, the persuasive evidence establishes that because there is sufficient business opportunity in the Miami- Dade PMA, establishment of the new Infiniti dealership is not likely to have a significant negative impact on the existing Miami-Dade Infiniti dealers, including South Motors. The persuasive evidence also shows, based on an analysis of all instances in Florida since 2009 in which a new dealership was added to an existing dealer network, that the new dealership is likely to stimulate the market and result in additional sales for the Infiniti line-make, with relatively little to no negative impact to the existing dealers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. 2. Reasonably Expected Market Penetration in the Comm/Terr Market penetration is a measure of the share of the retail motor vehicle market that a particular line-make achieves during a defined period of time in a particular geographic area. Establishing an Appropriate Benchmark To determine if the Infiniti brand is adequately performing with respect to sales in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, a standard for measuring the brand's representation within that area must be identified. This entails identifying an appropriate geographic area in which to assess brand performance for purposes of comparison to Infiniti's performance in the Comm/Terr. Here, Infiniti posits that the appropriate geographic area consists of Florida areas that currently are represented by an Infiniti dealer. This geographic area is proposed because when determining whether the Infiniti brand is adequately represented in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, the brand's sales performance should be compared to other areas where Infiniti is actually represented by a dealer.29/ The performance benchmark derived from this geographic area is the "Florida Represented Standard," which is the average performance of the Infiniti brand in the PMAs currently being represented by a dealer in Florida, minus the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr.30/ The Florida Represented Standard benchmark is a local standard that more precisely reflects Infiniti's level of brand representation in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr than do other broader benchmarks, such as average Infiniti brand performance for the eastern U.S. or the entire country.31/ South Motors' expert, Mr. Roesner, examined more than one benchmark for purposes of determining Infiniti sales performance, specifically, the Florida Represented Standard; all of Florida, including unassigned areas, minus the Southeast Florida Metro market (which consists of Miami-Dade and Broward counties and a small portion of Palm Beach County); and the Florida Represented Standard minus the Southeast Florida Metro market. As discussed above, it has been determined that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is the appropriate comm/terr for this proceeding. Thus, the benchmark for determining average brand performance must be selected to enable a comparison to the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. Of the comparison areas proposed in this proceeding, only the Florida Represented Standard meets that requirement. Thus, it is determined that the Florida Represented Standard is the appropriate benchmark in this proceeding for determining Infiniti's brand performance. Segmentation Analysis Once the performance benchmark has been determined, a segmentation analysis is performed to account for any differences in consumer and product preferences between the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and the comparison area——here, the area comprising the Florida Represented Standard. Infiniti's product lines are broken down into various vehicle types, or segments, on the basis of size, functionality, price point, and "second choice" data. Segmentation analysis evaluates the specific types of vehicles being purchased by consumers in a particular area and accounts for all consumer and product variables in the market, so that no other adjustments to account for demographic characteristics such as ethnicity, income, or education are necessary. Thus, segmentation analysis eliminates the need to speculate regarding consumer preferences across vehicle types based on the range of demographic factors, including ethnicity. Infiniti has identified seven different "segments," or vehicle types, within its brand for purposes of analyzing brand performance. These segments are: Luxury Coupe, Mid Luxury, Near Luxury, Luxury Compact SUV, Luxury Midsize SUV, Luxury Fullsize SUV, and Luxury Large SUV. Infiniti also has identified the specific Infiniti models within each segment, as well as the specific models of other line-makes that compete with the Infiniti models within each segment. The penetration rate in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr for Infiniti for a particular segment is determined by dividing the number of Infiniti registrations for that segment by the total number of competitive registrations for that segment. The expected penetration rate for a particular segment of the Infiniti brand is determined by comparing the total number of competitive registrations for that segment to the Florida Represented Standard. This expected penetration rate per segment can then be compared to the actual sales of Infiniti vehicles for that segment. Based on the Florida Represented Standard, for the year 2012-2013, the expected penetration rate for Infiniti vehicles across all segments is 8.42 percent. During this period, Infiniti achieved an actual penetration rate of 6.51 percent across all vehicle segments in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, showing a shortfall between expected and actual sales of Infiniti vehicles in the Comm/Terr. Registration effectiveness, which compares actual brand penetration to expected brand penetration,32/ is the calculated measure that is used to gauge brand performance. Here, comparing the expected 8.42 percent Infiniti penetration rate to the actual 6.51 percent Infiniti penetration rate yields a registration effectiveness for the Infiniti brand of 77.3 percent for the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr for 2013. Confirmation of the Benchmark as Reasonable Once the benchmark has been selected and adjusted using segmentation analysis, it must be evaluated by determining if it is achievable and has been achieved in the Florida Represented Standard area. Here, the persuasive evidence consistently showed, across a range of represented PMAs in Florida, that with little exception, the dealers are meeting the benchmark of 100 percent registration effectiveness, which is average performance. This confirms that the Florida Represented Standard is a reasonable benchmark to use in evaluating Infiniti's brand sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. Measuring Infiniti's Brand Performance in the Comm/Terr The persuasive evidence shows that in comparison to the Florida Represented Standard benchmark, the Infiniti's sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is below average. Between 2011 and 2013, Infiniti's sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr ranged between 77 and 80 percent of average. However, by March 2014, its performance had fallen to approximately 65 percent of average. In 2013, the existing Infiniti dealer network in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr made 737 fewer vehicle sales than expected and it was projected to make 1,284 fewer vehicle sales than expected through 2014. This shows that customers are purchasing Infiniti vehicles in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr at significantly lower levels than in the rest of the represented markets in Florida. This indicates that the Infiniti brand is not being adequately represented by the existing dealer network in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. This inadequacy is even more pronounced when Infiniti's sales performance is evaluated in the area encompassed within the Coral Gables PMA. Between 2011 and March 2014, Infiniti's sales performance fell from 67.9 percent of average to 56.1 percent of average. In 2013, the existing dealer network made 543 fewer Infiniti sales than expected within the area in the Coral Gables PMA, and it was on pace to make 720 fewer sales than expected in 2014——making it the worst-performing PMA in Florida. In 2011, South Motors accounted for 30.1 percent of the brand's registration effectiveness within the Coral Gables PMA, and other dealers accounted for 37.8 percent. In 2012, those numbers were 31.1 percent and 34.4 percent, respectively; in 2013, those numbers were 25.0 percent and 38.0 percent, respectively; and as of March 2014, those numbers were 27.1 percent and 29.0 percent, respectively. This information shows that the existing Infiniti dealer network is not providing adequate representation or sufficiently cultivating existing sales potential in the area encompassed within the Coral Gables PMA. South Motors' expert, Mr. Roesner, evaluated Infiniti's brand performance within the Southeast Florida Metro area, but did not specifically evaluate Infiniti brand performance within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr or the Coral Gables PMA. Based on his analysis of Infiniti's sales performance in the Southeast Florida Metro market, Roesner found that the Infiniti brand was performing between approximately 85 percent and 90 percent of average in that area. He described this performance as "a reasonable level. It's not a superior performance, but neither is it inadequate." Because Roesner's analysis was keyed to the Southeast Florida Metro market, it necessarily included Infiniti's performance in Broward County north of Warren Henry. In Broward County, the Infiniti brand is represented by three dealerships located in close proximity to each other, and the brand performs relatively well. By contrast, there are only two Infiniti dealerships in Miami-Dade County, separated by 26 miles of urban development and congested traffic conditions. By including Broward County, Roesner's analysis shows Infiniti performing at a significantly higher level than in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr or Coral Gables PMA. The inclusion of Broward County in Infiniti's sales performance analysis positively skews the performance numbers, but does not accurately portray the brand's sales performance specifically in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, which is the geographic area relevant to this proceeding.33/ Roesner acknowledged that there is little interaction between the Broward County dealerships and customers in the Coral Gables area, with each Broward County dealership making less than nine percent of its nationwide sales within the Coral Gables area. He further acknowledged that this is due, at least in part, to the significant drive distances between those dealerships and the Coral Gables area. Roesner posited that because existing dealers are making some sales into the Coral Gables PMA, it is being "cultivated." However, he acknowledged that this did not necessarily mean that this area was being adequately represented by the existing dealers. He further acknowledged that Infiniti's brand performance in the Coral Gables PMA is worst in the state and that there is opportunity for additional sales within that area. In sum, the persuasive evidence demonstrates that the Infiniti brand is not being adequately represented for new vehicle sales in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and that the brand performs particularly poorly in the Coral Gables PMA. Infiniti's service performance also was analyzed to determine if it is being adequately represented within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and in the Coral Gables PMA. First, the number of Infiniti Units in Operation ("UIO") within the Miami- Dade Comm/Terr and Coral Gables PMA was determined. This number is a measure of service opportunity for Infiniti in this geographic area. Infiniti uses a seven-year UIO measurement, which reflects the number of Infiniti vehicles within the most recent seven model years. Once the amount of UIO was determined, this number was then compared to Infiniti repair orders for warranty service, extended service contracts, goodwill repairs, and service campaign repairs.34/ This enabled determination of the "capture rate" or percentage of UIO that were matched to a qualifying repair order. Because Infiniti's initial warranty covers four years, this analysis is not limited to warranty repair and includes all types of repair work for which Infiniti reimburses the dealer to perform. This analysis showed that South Motors is capturing 67.2 percent of the UIO in its PMA. However, its UIO capture in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as a whole and in the Coral Gables PMA were substantially lower, at 46.8 percent and 46.7 percent, respectively. The significant difference between Infiniti's service performance within South Motors' PMA compared to the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as a whole and to the Coral Gables PMA demonstrates that the existing dealer network is not providing adequate representation for service within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and the Coral Gables PMA. Factors Affecting Infiniti's Market Penetration in the Comm/Terr The statutory "market penetration" factor requires, in addition to an analysis of how existing dealers are penetrating the market, "consideration of all factors which may affect said penetration, including but not limited to, demographic factors such as age, income, education, size class preference, product popularity, retail lease transactions, or other factors affecting sales to consumers in the community or territory." § 320.642(2)(b)3., Fla. Stat. The factors germane to this proceeding are addressed below. Population and household trends in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr are indicators of market opportunity. The Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is a very densely populated area that has over three million people and one million households, so presents a substantial market opportunity. With approximately 1.2 million people and growing, the Coral Gables area is a particularly densely populated, heavily congested area within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. This means that consumers in this area seeking access to an Infiniti dealership have to work their way through heavy traffic to access a dealer located substantially to the north or south. These population and household numbers are expected to increase in the future, increasing both the demand for vehicles sales and service and the congestion that must be negotiated to obtain access to an Infiniti dealer in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. These factors indicate that Infiniti's underperformance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is due to an inadequate number of Infiniti dealers, and that this performance shortfall will become more pronounced in the future under the existing dealer network. Household income and employment are indicators of consumers who are in the market to purchase a vehicle. Employment in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr has been growing since reaching a low point in 2009, indicating good economic conditions for the vehicle retail business. There are over 380,000 households with an annual income of between $50,000 and $150,000, and an additional 75,000 households having an annual income of over $150,000. These conditions indicate a significant number of households in this area that are in the target range for the Infiniti brand. A statistical regression analysis was performed to determine whether Infiniti brand performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr may be significantly related to the high Hispanic population in the area. This analysis identified several areas in Florida having a high Hispanic population where the brand is performing well, indicating no significant relationship between the percentage of Hispanic population and Infiniti's brand performance. Thus, this factor is not adversely affecting the brand's performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. The competitive registration patterns in the Miami- Dade Comm/Terr show a significant concentration of consumers who are purchasing vehicles of competitive line-makes and models in Coral Gables, in and around the location of the proposed M10 dealership. In fact, many dealers who sell vehicles that compete with Infiniti have dealerships close to this location. This indicates that dealership convenience and accessibility are important to customers in this area, and that the lack of an Infiniti dealership in this area indicates a lack of convenience and accessibility for customers of the Infiniti brand. This area has experienced steady growth in competitive registrations over the past few years and that trend is anticipated to continue into the future. This shows that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and the Coral Gables PMA present a consistent and growing opportunity for Infiniti sales, and that the current shortfall in Infiniti sales is not due to lack of sales opportunity in these areas. The evidence shows that the sales opportunity for Infiniti dealers within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is the largest per dealer of any market in Florida, and that even if a third dealer were added in the Coral Gables area, the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr still would have the largest sales opportunity per dealer in the state. This indicates that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is too large a market to be adequately served by the two existing Infiniti dealers. The evidence similarly shows that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr also has the largest service opportunity (in terms of UIO) per dealership of any market in Florida——again, suggesting that the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is too large a service market for the two existing dealers to adequately serve. Addition of a third dealership in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr would slightly reduce the UIO per dealership, but the Comm/Terr still would constitute the third largest service market in Florida. The reduction in UIO per dealership is related to the number of units (vehicles) in operation in the area and Infiniti's sales performance in the area. Because the Infiniti brand's sales performance has fallen below the expected level in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, there are fewer units in operation than if the brand performed at expected levels for sales performance. With higher sales performance, the number of units in operation in this market——and, thus, service opportunity——would increase due to the additional vehicle sales being made into the market. Thus, as the Infiniti brand experiences better sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, service opportunity will increase. The evidence shows a significant existing level of service opportunity in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr that is anticipated to increase with increased sales performance. Infiniti dealers are able to capture a larger percentage of sales closer to their dealership and are less effective at capturing sales to customers further away from the dealership. With respect to the existing Infiniti dealer network, South Motors currently captures 72.2 percent of the expected sales within four miles of its dealership. However, this capture percentage significantly decreases at greater distances; South Motors captures only an estimated 45.8 percent of expected sales at 10 to 12 miles from its dealership. Warren Henry exhibits a similar pattern, capturing 73.3 percent of expected sales within four miles of its dealership, but the drop-off is more dramatic with distance. Warren Henry captures only 28.3 percent of expected sales at 10 to 12 miles from its dealership and only 17.9 percent at 12 to 16 miles from its dealership. The proposed M10 dealership in Coral Gables is more than 10 miles from South Motors and more than 15 miles from Warren Henry. These data show that South Motors and Warren Henry both are too far from the Coral Gables area for either of them to adequately represent the area for vehicle sales. Customer convenience is gauged by determining the average drive distance consumers in the Coral Gables PMA must travel to reach an Infiniti dealership. With the 26-mile gap between the existing dealers in Miami-Dade County, customers in the Coral Gables PMA must drive an average of 13.2 miles, through congested conditions, to reach the nearest Infiniti dealer. This distance is significantly further than customers in the Coral Gables area must travel to reach other dealerships that sell competitive line-makes and models, including Mercedes- Benz, Audi, Cadillac, BMW, Lexis, Acura, and others. The lack of convenient sales and service access places Infiniti at a significant competitive disadvantage relative to other brands, and is a key reason for Infiniti's underperformance as a brand, both in the Coral Gables PMA and in the rest of the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. An analysis of the number of competitors per dealer further evidences that Infiniti is inadequately represented, in terms of number of dealers, within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. There are 51 competitive motor vehicle franchises in the Miami- Dade Comm/Terr, two of which are the existing Infiniti dealerships, South Motors and Warren Henry. Thus, the Infiniti brand has 3.9 percent of the "shelf space," or share, of the competitive franchises within the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. By contrast, the Florida Represented Standard enjoys 4.7 percent of the competitive "shelf space." This shows that Infiniti is underrepresented in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and would need to add 2.4 Infiniti dealers to have the same competitive "shelf space" as the other Infiniti franchises comprising the Florida Represented Standard. This evidences that the Infiniti brand is performing poorly in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr due to having too few dealerships in the Comm/Terr. These factors support the conclusion that the causes of Infiniti's inadequate sales and service performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in the Coral Gables PMA, are the lack of convenient access to the Infiniti brand relative to its competitors and underrepresentation by having too few Infiniti dealers. 3. Size and Permanency of Reasonable Investments and Obligations Incurred by Existing Dealers to Perform Under Dealer Agreements South Motors has invested over $25 million in its dealership operations. This investment includes significant investments in purchasing and leasing property, as well as investing in the facilities from which South Motors operates. South Motors also has committed to upgrade its sales facility to IREDI standards, which will entail a substantial investment. As previously noted, Infiniti has committed to provide South Motors $550,000 to upgrade to IREDI standards. 4. Actions by Licensee Denying Existing Dealers Opportunity for Reasonable Growth or Market Expansion The evidence does not establish that Infiniti has taken any actions to deny existing dealers the opportunity for reasonable growth or market expansion. South Motors asserts that Infiniti's provision of $4.4 million of financial support to M10 gives it an unfair competitive advantage, which effectively denies it and other existing dealers the opportunity for reasonable growth or market expansion. However, South Motors did not provide any specific, persuasive evidence substantiating this assertion. The evidence shows that the financial assistance Infiniti has proposed to provide M10 is to help cover the costs of this proceeding and any subsequent appeals, the rent costs during the pendency of this proceeding and appeals, and start-up costs. This assistance is intended to help M10 break even, not gain any competitive advantage over the existing dealers. As it is, Infiniti is providing South Motors $550,000 toward renovating its existing dealership to meet IREDI standards, with the aim of helping make it a more competitive dealership in the luxury vehicle market. Further, the persuasive evidence establishes that had South Motors, as the initial preferred candidate, provided a formal proposal and signed a confidentiality agreement regarding a Coral Gables dealership, Infiniti likely was prepared to provide South Motors between $3 million and $5 million to open an Infiniti dealership in the Coral Gables open point. 5. Attempts by Licensee to Coerce Existing Dealers 160. There is no evidence that Infiniti attempted to coerce South Motors, Warren Henry, or any other existing Infiniti dealers to consent to the proposed Coral Gables dealership. 6. Distance, Travel Time, Traffic Patterns, and Accessibility between Existing Infiniti Dealers and Location of the Proposed Dealership As previously discussed, the South Motors and Warren Henry dealerships are approximately 26 air miles and 28.5 drive miles apart. M10 will be located in downtown Coral Gables, approximately 10.6 air miles and 11.2 drive miles from South Motors, and approximately 15.6 air miles and 17.3 drive miles from Warren Henry. As previously discussed, several populous communities in Miami-Dade County are located in the stretch between South Motors and Warren Henry. Traffic conditions between South Motors and Warren Henry are heavily congested, and customers in these communities, including in Coral Gables, who wish to purchase a vehicle or have a vehicle serviced at either existing Infiniti dealership must negotiate very congested traffic conditions to get to the dealership——a trip that may take between 30 and 45 minutes of drive time, depending on traffic conditions. A prime reason Infiniti is seeking approval to add M10 in Coral Gables is to increase convenience to luxury vehicle customers in this area which, as previously noted, is one of the top three luxury vehicle markets in the country. The evidence shows that convenience is a key consideration for luxury vehicle customers when choosing a dealership for purchase or servicing a vehicle. Due to M10's location proximate to a large luxury vehicle customer base, Infiniti anticipates that its sales and service performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in the Coral Gables area, will improve. The evidence shows that the establishment of M10 will reduce the average drive distance to the nearest Infiniti dealer for customers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. It is thus reasonable to infer that adding the M10 dealership in Coral Gables also will reduce the drive time for Infiniti customers to reach the nearest Infiniti dealership. 7. Likelihood of Benefits to Consumers due to Establishment of New Dealership that Cannot be Obtained by other Geographic or Demographic Changes or Expected Changes within the Comm/Terr 166. As previously discussed, the evidence shows that the establishment of M10 likely will benefit consumers in the Miami- Dade Comm/Terr due to increased convenience in accessing an Infiniti dealership for sales and service and increased intrabrand and interbrand competition. Also as discussed, M10 is anticipated to be profitable and is not anticipated to significantly negatively affect South Motors. Thus, customers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr will benefit from M10's establishment. 8. Whether the Protesting Dealer is in Substantial Compliance with its Dealer Agreement South Motors currently is in compliance with its Dealer Agreement. South Motors' dealership facility is older and outdated in some respects and does not comply with Infiniti's IREDI standards. However, South Motors has committed to renovating its facility to comply with IREDI standards. Historically, South Motors' performance was inadequate, but it has performed well since 2009, when the area now included in the Coral Gables open point was removed from its PMA. South Motors has won Infiniti's Award of Excellence. Infiniti is not claiming that South Motors is a bad dealer, only that, for a variety of reasons addressed herein, additional representation of Infiniti in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in the Coral Gables area, is warranted. 9. Whether there is Adequate Interbrand or Intrabrand Competition in the Comm/Terr and Adequately Convenient Customer Care, Including Sales and Service Facilities Adequacy As previously addressed, Infiniti's below-average brand performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr indicates that there currently is not adequate intrabrand or interbrand competition for the Infiniti brand, largely due to underrepresentation by having only two dealerships in a large, heavily populated, congested area. South Motors engages in an aggressive advertising program and performs well for sales and service within its own PMA. However, the evidence shows that due to an inadequate number of Infiniti dealers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, the Infiniti brand does not compete particularly well against other luxury vehicle brands in the Comm/Terr. Also as previously discussed, the evidence shows that another substantial reason for Infiniti's brand underperformance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is that for a large number of customers in the Comm/Terr, including those in the Coral Gables area, convenient access to Infiniti sales and service facilities is lacking. The bulk of customers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr seeking an Infiniti sales or service dealership must travel, in congested conditions, a substantial distance north, almost to Broward County, or a substantial distance south, below Kendall, to reach a dealership.35/ At the same time, Infiniti's competitors have dealerships located in more convenient areas of the Comm/Terr, including in Coral Gables, which helps them outcompete Infiniti for luxury vehicle sales. The evidence shows that establishing M10 at its proposed location will enhance interbrand and intrabrand competition, and also will enhance customer convenience with respect to drive distance and drive time to an Infiniti sales and service facility. 10. Whether Establishment of Proposed Dealership is Warranted and Justified Based on Economic and Marketing Conditions Pertinent to Dealers Competing in the Comm/Terr As previously discussed, in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, the Infiniti line-make historically has performed below average, and its performance is declining. In March 2014, Infiniti's sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr was approximately 65 percent of average based on the Florida Represented Standard benchmark. In Coral Gables, Infiniti's performance fared worse, with a sales performance of 56.1 percent of benchmark average. As previously noted, the data show that there are approximately 18,000 competitive luxury vehicle registrations per year in the Coral Gables area alone, making it the third largest luxury car market in the country. Employment in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr has steadily grown over the past five to six years, and the economic conditions are favorable for the motor vehicle business. The evidence shows that there is a large luxury vehicle customer base living in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, particularly near the location of the proposed M10 dealership. To that point, several of Infiniti's luxury vehicle competitors have dealerships in this area. As discussed in detail above, the evidence shows that the Infiniti brand, with only two existing dealerships in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, is underrepresented in the Comm/Terr. The Miami-Dade Comm/Terr currently has the largest sales opportunity per dealer of any market in Florida and if a third dealer were added in Coral Gables, the Comm/Terr still would have the largest sales opportunity per dealer in the state. Also as previously discussed, the evidence shows that establishment of M10 likely will not have a significant negative effect on the existing Infiniti dealerships in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. These economic and marketing conditions in the Miami- Dade Comm/Terr support the establishment of M10. 11. Volume of Registrations and Service Business Transacted by Existing Dealers in the Comm/Terr As discussed above, the evidence shows that since 2011, Infiniti's sales performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr has been significantly below the Florida Represented Standard benchmark average, and is declining. With only two Infiniti dealerships, the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr currently presents the greatest sales opportunity per dealer among all Florida markets, and that would continue to be the case with the addition of M10. The Miami-Dade Comm/Terr also currently has the largest number of Infiniti units in operation, so presents the greatest service opportunity in the state. If M10 were added, the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr no longer would have the largest units in ownership in the state, but it would be the third largest service market in Florida. As previously discussed, the slight decrease in service opportunity per dealership is due to the current sales underperformance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. As Infiniti sales performance increases in the future with the addition of another dealership, the service opportunity available to all dealers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr also will increase. In sum, Infiniti's current underperformance in sales and service in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, with projected increases in both with the addition of another dealership, supports the establishment of M10. Findings of Ultimate Fact Regarding Adequate Representation in the Comm/Terr and in the Coral Gables PMA The evidence establishes that the existing Infiniti dealer network in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is making substantially fewer new Infiniti sales than expected compared to other Infiniti dealers in Florida based on the Florida Represented Standard, and also is capturing a significantly smaller percentage of available service opportunity in the Comm/Terr as a whole compared to the South Motors PMA, which is a dealer-represented PMA. Infiniti's performance has declined over time, and Infiniti is losing a significant amount of business to competitors. Accordingly, the existing Infiniti dealers are not achieving the volume of sales or service business reasonably expected in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. The evidence shows that Infiniti's inadequate sales and service performance in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is due to underrepresentation by an existing dealer network comprised of only two dealers 26 miles apart in a densely populated, heavily congested urban area. Infiniti's inadequate brand performance is not due to deficient sales effectiveness or service level by the existing dealers within their own PMAs. The Infiniti brand is performing at even lower levels in the Coral Gables PMA. In that area, the existing dealer network is making a small percentage of the expected new vehicle sales available and a very small percentage of the warranty service business captured in other represented markets in Florida. Coral Gables is located at the approximate midpoint of a 26-mile gap in Infiniti representation in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr that includes downtown Miami and Coral Gables. With its current dealer network, Infiniti has the worst customer convenience of any competitive luxury vehicle brand in the Coral Gables PMA. Customers currently must drive an average of 13.2 miles to reach the nearest Infiniti dealership. The evidence indicates that the population, number of households, employment levels, number of competitive registrations, and units in operation in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in Coral Gables, are likely to grow in the coming years, so that Infiniti's brand underperformance will not improve, but will continue to decline. The establishment of M10 in Coral Gables will significantly reduce the average drive distance and drive time to an Infiniti dealership for sales and service customers, thus improving customer convenience to the Infiniti brand. The proposed M10 dealership will increase the awareness of Infiniti's brand in the luxury vehicle market and will promote intrabrand and interbrand competition. The proposed new dealership will benefit the public interest by increasing employment in the community, contributing to positive community character, and generating tax revenue. The persuasive evidence shows that M10 is not likely to have a material negative impact on South Motors. There is sufficient sales and service opportunity in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr and in the Coral Gables PMA to support the addition of the M10 dealership without materially affecting the existing dealers, including South Motors. Further, the evidence shows that addition of M10 will increase Infiniti's brand awareness and may generate additional business that may inure to the benefit of all Infiniti dealers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. The persuasive evidence establishes that any potential impact on South Motors, which is likely to be minimal at most, will be outweighed by the significant benefits to consumers, the public, and the Infiniti brand from the establishment of M10. In sum, Infiniti has met its burden to demonstrate, by the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the existing Infiniti dealers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr are not providing adequate representation of the Infiniti line-make in the Comm/Terr, pursuant to the factors in section 320.642(2)(b). Accordingly, Infiniti has shown that the establishment of M10 as an Infiniti dealership should be approved. Relocation of Warren Henry South Motors asserts that M10 cannot be established due to the potential relocation of Warren Henry Infiniti. Specifically, South Motors asserts that Infiniti cannot be permitted to establish a dealership in Coral Gables until Warren Henry's potential relocation has occurred and its impact on the adequacy of representation in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr is evaluated. Over the years, Warren Henry has sought to relocate its dealership several times; however, none of these efforts has come to fruition. In 2012, Infiniti approved the relocation of Warren Henry to a new location at 14995 Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, and proposed relocation was noticed in the Florida Administrative Register in April 2013. The proposed relocation site is approximately 4.8 miles southeast of its present dealership location, 22 miles north of South Motors, and 12 miles from M10's proposed location. The proposed relocation site is within Warren Henry's existing PMA. As with Warren Henry's previous relocation efforts, problems have developed that have hindered its ability to secure the proposed relocation site. As a result, it missed all of the deadlines agreed to with Infiniti for relocating to the new site. As of the final hearing, Warren Henry still had not secured a lease on the site of its relocated dealership.36/ It is uncertain whether Warren Henry Infiniti will relocate, and if it does, when that relocation will occur. Moreover, even if Warren Henry were to eventually relocate to the proposed site, it would still be anticipated to capture only 18 percent of expected Infiniti sales in the Coral Gables area. This shows that the relocation would not address the inconvenience in accessing the Infiniti brand for customers in that area. In any event, the evidence shows that as the population in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr increases, it will become increasingly inconvenient for customers to reach an Infiniti dealership in the existing network. The evidence shows that adding the M10 dealership will make access to an Infiniti dealer significantly more convenient for customers in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr, and particularly in the Coral Gables area. In sum, the addition of M10 will result in benefits to consumers that would not otherwise be obtained by other geographic or demographic changes or expected changes in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr. Identifiable Plot The evidence establishes that the Infiniti brand significantly underperforms for both sales and service in the Coral Gables PMA. As previously discussed, the Infiniti brand has been performing poorly in the Coral Gables area for several years, and that performance is in decline. By early 2014, Infiniti's brand performance had fallen to 56.1 percent, with continued decline projected. This is markedly lower than Infiniti's subpar sales performance, at 65 percent of benchmark average, in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as a whole. The Coral Gables PMA is the worst-performing PMA for new vehicle sales in the state. Infiniti's service performance in the Coral Gables PMA, at 46.7 percent of benchmark average, also is poor, although not markedly poorer than in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as a whole. South Motors currently performs well within its own PMA, but captures only 50 percent of luxury vehicle sales within the Coral Gables area. These data support the determination that Coral Gables is a discrete "identifiable plot" in which Infiniti sales and service are performing more poorly than in the Miami-Dade Comm/Terr as a whole. M10's Service Location As previously noted, on April 4, 2014, DHSMV published two notices of publication for a new point, providing notice that Infiniti intended to allow the establishment of M10. The 14-2070 Notice stated in pertinent part: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that Infiniti... intends to allow the establishment of M10 Motors...as a dealership for the sale and service of Infiniti vehicles (line-make INFI) at 2701 Le Jeune Road, Coral Gables (Miami-Dade County), Florida 33134, on or after June 1, 2014. The 14-2069 Notice stated in pertinent part: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, notice is given that Infiniti... intends to allow the establishment of M10 Motors...as an Infiniti dealership with additional service facilities (line-make INFI) at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables (Miami-Dade County), Florida 33146 ("Ponce de Leon"). This service location on Ponce de Leon Boulevard will not be established independent of the sale and service facility located at 2701 Le Jeune Road, Coral Gables, FL, but shall be established only in conjunction with and subject to the approval of the sale and service facility, which is being noticed simultaneously herewith. Further, Infiniti asserts the exemption for this additional service facility at Ponce de Leon Boulevard as provided in Section 32[0].642(6)(b), Florida Statutes, on or after June 1, 2014. Id. (emphasis added). The publication of two separate notices by DHSMV for the establishment of M10 was driven by correspondence submitted to the agency by Infiniti's Analyst for Dealer Agreements, who sent two letters giving notice of Infiniti's intent to establish M10. The language quoted above was taken directly from the letters submitted by Infiniti's analyst. Although the correspondence submitted to DHSMV, and, consequently, the notice published for Case No. 14-2069, refers to section 320.642(6), regarding "service-only" dealerships, the notice also contains specific language, quoted above, that makes abundantly clear that the service location on Ponce de Leon Boulevard is not a separate stand-alone dealership, but instead is a remote service performance location that is an integral part of a single M10 dealership location having a sales and service location on Le Jeune Road. Further, the evidence presented at the final hearing made clear that the Ponce de Leon service location was just that——a remote location at which all of the service for M10 would be performed. The evidence did not in any manner portray the Ponce de Leon facility as a stand-alone dealership. Accordingly, it is determined that this proceeding concerns the approval of one M10 Infiniti dealership, with its sales and service intake facility located at 2701 Le Jeune Road and its service performance location at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order granting the application of M10 Motors, Inc., d/b/a Infiniti of Coral Gables, Inc., as a dealer for the sale and service of Infiniti line-make vehicles, with a sales and service location at 2701 Le Jeune Road, Coral Gables, Florida 33134, and a service location at 4001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
The Issue The matters presented here concern rules challenges against the Rule 15C- 1.08, Florida Administrative Code, and certain other policies of the Respondent which the Petitioner claims to be rules within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(14), Florida Statutes. The initial challenge in this Petition deals with the aforementioned Rule 15C-1.08, Florida Administrative Code, and the Petitioner, by this attack, argues that the rules provision in question is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, due to an alleged impermissible expansion of the statutory scheme for the licensure of new motor vehicle dealers in the State of Florida as contemplated by Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, by this action, also takes issue with the alleged policy of the Respondent dealing with the acceptance of protests from previously licensed motor vehicle dealers selling motor vehicles of the same manufacturer as the proposed licensee, filed in opposition to the grant of a license to the proposed licensee which protests are filed prior to the time of application on the part of the proposed dealer. The Petitioner, in addition, challenges the alleged policy of the Respondent which would cause the Respondent to accept protests by existing dealers directed against the licensure of a proposed dealer, without reference to whether the protestant is located in the same "community or territory," based upon the fact that the existing dealership is located in a county adjacent to the county of the proposed dealership. Both of the described policies, according to the Petitioner, are invalid for reason that they fail to meet the requirements for rule adoption as set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and for reason that they are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, in that the policies are contrary to the enabling legislation found in Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. FINDINGS OF FACT 1/ This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petition for determination of the invalidity of rules filed on June 16, 1981, by Petitioners Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (Yamaha) and Daniel P. Schmitt d/b/a Gulfview Yamaha (Gulfview), as received by the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings. The jurisdictional theory for filing this case was that provision Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Subsequent to the receipt of the Petition, the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings reviewed the Petition, and following case assignment on June 25, 1981, the case was heard by the undersigned on July 15, 1981. The Petitioner, Daniel P. Schmitt d/b/a Gulfview Yamaha, dismissed his rules challenge on August 7, 1981. This Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was acknowledged by an order of the undersigned dated August 10, 1981. The Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and attending order followed the closure of the case of Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. and Daniel R. Schmitt d/b/a Gulfview Yamaha, Petitioners, vs. The State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Motor Vehicles and Mike Thweatt d/b/a Mike's Yamaha, et al., Respondents DOAH Case No. 81-1104. The dismissal and closure of that Division of Administrative Hearings' case pertained to protests before the Division of Motor Vehicles, filed by existing Yamaha motorcycle dealers and the efforts on the part of the Co-Petitioners in DOAH Case No. 81-1104, to gain a Florida motor vehicle dealer's license for Daniel R. Schmitt. The Schmitt dealership is to be located in Pasco County, Florida. The four (4) protesting dealers located in counties adjacent to Pasco County had filed advance protests to the grant of the new license to Daniel R. Schmitt and had done so three (3) weeks prior to Schmitt's filing for licensure. One of the parties to that action, namely Barney's Motorcycle Sales, Inc., withdrew its protest and the remaining private parties stipulated to a settlement. This now allows Daniel R. Schmitt to be licensed as a Florida motor vehicle dealer, that Petitioner having fulfilled other requirements for licensure. There remains for consideration the claim of Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., for determination of rules invalidity. Petitioner Yamaha is an importer and distributor of motorcycles manufactured in Japan and the Petitioner controls the marketing of that merchandise in the United States and the grant of franchise agreements to independent dealers in this country, to include those dealers who must be licensed by the Respondent in order to sell motorcycles in the State of Florida. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Motor Vehicles, is the agency assigned the ask of licensing meter vehicle dealerships in the State of Florida, as required by the terms and conditions of Chapter 320, Florida Statutes. In particular, this determination must be made in keeping with Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. 2/ In carrying out its responsibilities under Chapter 320, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has promulgated Rule 15C-1.08, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with the filing of a license application by a new motor vehicle dealer and the protest rights of existing licensed motor vehicle dealers of the same make. Rule 15C-1.08 states: Preliminary filing of an application for a motor vehicle dealer's license; procedure. Any person who contemplates the establishment of a motor vehicle business for the purpose of selling new motor vehicles, for which a franchise from the manufacturer, distributor or importer thereof is required, shall, in advance of acquiring building and facilities necessary for such an establishment, notify the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles of his intention to establish such motor vehicle business. Such notice shall be in the form of a preliminary filing of his application for license and shall be accompanied by a copy of any proposed franchise agreement with, or letter of intent to grant a franchise from, the manufacturer, distributor or importer, showing the make of vehicle or vehicles included in the franchise; location of the proposed business; the name or names of any other dealer or dealers in the surrounding trade areas, community or territory who are presently franchised to sell the same make or makes of motor vehicles. Upon receipt of such notice the Director shall be authorized to proceed with making the determination required by Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, and shall cause a notice to be sent to tone presently licensed franchised dealers for the same make or makes of vehicles in the territory or community in which the new dealership proposed to locate, advising such dealers of the provisions of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, and giving them and all real parties in interest an opportunity to be heard on such matters specified in that Section. Such notice need not be given to any presently licensed franchised dealer who has stated in writing that he will not protest the establishment of a new dealership which will deal in the make or makes of vehicles to be included in the proposed franchise in the territory or community in which the new dealership proposes to locate. Any such statements or letters of no protest shall have been issued not more than three months before the date of filing of the preliminary application. The Director may make such further investigation and hold such hearing as he deems necessary to determine the question specified under Section 320.642. A determination so made by the Director shall be effective as to such license for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the Director's Order, or date of final judicial determination in the event of an appeal, unless for good cause a different period is set by the Director in his order of determination. On the subject of protests by existing dealers, Paragraph 5.A. of the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence, a policy memorandum by the Respondent, contains language which states: Definition for community or territory: All licensed dealers of like franchise in the county in which a new point is being considered. Any geographical distance where the new point would be in a joining county of the same marketing area as an area previously served. (Example - northern boundary of county A and southern boundary of county B.) Surrounding counties where a new point is being considered in a county having no licensed dealers of like franchise. Inspectors are NOT REQUIRED to secure letters of no-protest or protest and DO NOT indicate to the new applicant that a license will be issued at District office level. Dealers in adjoining counties to the county of the new dealer of similar make, where there is no existing dealer in the proposed dealer's county, may file protests in advance of the new dealer's application. The Respondent will not accept protests in advance from dealerships in other counties in this State which are not adjacent to the county of the proposed dealership. A protest in advance accepted by the Department may form the basis for a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing on the question of new dealer license. Letters of advance protest are valid for one or two months. Nonetheless, they remain in the permanent file of the Department and if an application is received more than one to two months after the advance protest, the protestant will be contacted to ask him to state whether he still would be in opposition to the grant of a new license. The existing dealer must respond within a time certain. The Department will accept license protests claims from any dealer in the same county as the proposed dealership on those occasions when an application for new dealership has been filed for location in a county where there is an existing dealer of the same manufacture. Under those facts, the Department will also accept protests from any dealer outside of the county where the proposed dealership is to be located, if the existing dealer of similar make has a "geographical conflict" with the applicant, meaning the protestant is just across the county line in the same "general marketing or trade area." The criteria for determining the "geographical conflict" between an existing and proposed dealership are premised upon an examination of map distances. Any protest filed by a similar make dealer in an adjacent county to the proposed dealer, where there is no dealership in the county in which the proposed dealership would be located, will always be accepted by the Respondent. In addition to the participatory rights of existing dealers previously discussed, when an application is received for a new dealer license, those existing dealers who sell the same make of motor vehicle, who are located in the county of the proposed new dealership are notified of their rights to protest the grant of the new dealer license pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes. If there are no dealers in the county where the proposed dealership would be located, then a determination is made by the Department on the question of whether there exists other dealerships in the same "trade or marketing area" or "territory or community" of the applicant and if such dealers exist who sell the same make of motor vehicle, they are notified of their right to protest under the above-referenced provision of law. Should the determination be made that there are no existing dealers in the same county, or "territory or community," as that of the proposed dealership, then no existing dealers of similar make of motor vehicle are notified of their right to protest the proposed dealership. In making determinations in the notification process, after receipt of the application of the proposed dealer, the Department uses the term "territory or community" and the term "surrounding trade area" interchangeably; however, at times, "surrounding trade area" is considered to be smaller than "territory or community" and at other times larger. The ultimate determination of the rights of protesting dealers to participate in the de novo hearing, held pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to consider the propriety of granting a new dealer license under the terms and conditions of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, are determined through that hearing process; notwithstanding the fact that they have been allowed to file protests in advance of or subsequent to the filing of an application for a new license and have received further notification of the pendency of a request for a new dealer license by the methods as stated before. In considering those motor vehicle dealers who sell motorcycles, their greatest sales success occurs during a limited number of months within the year, and it is important that the motorcycle dealer be in business during that season.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners should be permitted to establish an additional dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power Company, Ltd. ("ZHEJ").
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On April 17, 2009, the Florida Administrative Weekly published a notice that JCL International intended to allow the establishment of Extreme Motor Sales as a dealership for the sale of motorcycles manufactured by ZHEJ at the Orange Blossom Trail location. The notice also stated that the "new point" location for the proposed dealership is in a "county of more than 300,000 population, according to the latest population estimates of the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research." Respondent is an existing franchised dealer of motorcycles manufactured by ZHEJ. Respondent's dealership is located at 306 West Main Street in Apopka, Florida. The driving distance between Respondent's dealership and the location of the new dealership that JCL International proposes to establish is 3.89 miles.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles issue a final order denying Petitioners, Galaxy Powersports, LLC, d/b/a JCL International, LLC, and Extreme Motor Sales, approval to establish a new ZHEJ motorcycle dealership at 1918 South Orange Blossom Trail, Apopka, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether an application for a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership filed by El Sol Trading, Inc., and Fishers Auction Services, Inc., d/b/a Fisher Auto Equipment Sales (Petitioners), should be approved.
Findings Of Fact There was no evidence presented at the hearing to establish that Respondent has a franchise agreement to sell or service SHEN motor vehicles, the line-make to be sold by Cycles and More, Inc. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent's dealership is physically located so as to meet the statutory requirements for standing to protest the establishment of the new point franchise motor vehicle dealership.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing the protest filed in this case by Cycles and More, Inc., and granting Petitioners' request to establish a new point franchise motor vehicle dealership for the sale of SHEN motorcycles. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Gloria Ma El Sol Trading, Inc., d/b/a Motobravo, Inc. 19877 Quiroz Court City of Industry, California 91789 Raymond L. Fisher Fishers Auction Services, Inc., d/b/a Fisher Auto Equipment Sales 119 Dixwood Avenue Edgewood, Florida 32132 Jeanne Ciriello Cycles & More, Inc. 5797 South Ridgewood Avenue Port Orange, Florida 32127 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue The issue in this case is the “propriety of the protest regarding issues specifically within the purview of sections 320.642 and 320.699, Florida Statutes.”
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 2015, DOAH mailed a Notice of Hearing to each of the parties, scheduling the final hearing for January 13, 2016. No party objected to a final hearing on January 13, 2016. The dealership agreement between Wheelsport and Genuine is not in evidence; however, the weight of the evidence established that Wheelsport is an existing franchised dealer for Genuine, and has been since Genuine’s incorporation in 2003. Standing to protest the establishment of an additional new motor vehicle dealer depends on the population of the county in which the proposed location sits. If the population is greater than 300,000 persons, then a dealer of the same line- make must either: i) be located within a radius of 12.5 miles from the proposed location; or ii) "establish that during any 12-month period of the 36-month period preceding the filing of the [manufacturer's] application for the proposed dealership, the dealer or its predecessor made 25 percent of its retail sales of new motor vehicles to persons whose registered household addresses were located within a radius of 12.5 miles of the location of the proposed additional or relocated motor vehicle dealer." § 320.642(3)(b), Fla. Stat. The Department published the Notice, which indicated Genuine’s intent “to establish the new point location in a county of more than 300,000 population, according to the latest population estimates of the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research." There was no testimony of the census, an actual count of the population, or any population estimates in Pinellas County in 2015. No evidence was presented showing that Pinellas County, the county in which this dealership was proposed, had a population of greater (or less) than 300,000.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles dismissing Action Mopeds Inc., d/b/a Action Wheelsport’s, protest of the proposed establishment of an additional dealership for failure to establish standing pursuant to section 320.642(3). DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 2016.
