******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of the Application of ) ) CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS ) ) File Number 836921 For Renewal of the License of ) Aeronautical Advisory Station KCX7 ) ORDER Adopted: August 4, 1999 Released: August 5, 1999 By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. Introduction 1. In this Order, we grant the renewal application of the City of Galveston (City) for its license for aeronautical advisory (unicom) Station KCX7 and deny the request made in the letter submitted Mr. Bill Brown of Galv-Aero Flight Center (Galv-Aero). Galv-Aero is protesting the City's renewal application and urging its denial or designation for hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the application for renewal is granted and the relief requested by Galv-Aero is denied. II. Background 2. The City's renewal application was timely filed on November 13, 1995. On November 21, 1995, the Commission advised the City that the application was incomplete. On December 5, 1995, the City supplemented its renewal application by providing additional information. The application was placed on public notice on December 15, 1995, the same date the Galv-Aero Letter was received. On January 18, 1996, we granted the City's renewal application. On January 29, 1996, we rescinded the grant in order to consider the issues raised by the Galv-Aero Letter. 3. Galv-Aero objects to the City's renewal application because, in its view, many of the City's employees are unfamiliar with aircraft operating rules and procedures, and, consequently, have caused hazardous situations. In addition, Galv-Aero states that there are two Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) at the airport and that the City favors one over the other by continually soliciting business for one FBO and discouraging traffic that is bound for the other FBO. Finally, Galv-Aero believes that the City should not be allowed to hire employees of an FBO to operate the unicom station, but rather should use City employees to provide security services and let FBOs offer advisory services for their customers. Galv-Aero also has offered to supply witnesses who allegedly would furnish factual support for Galv-Aero's claims provided their names are not disclosed to the City. III. Discussion 4. Before we address the merits of Galv-Aero's arguments, we must first determine if Galv- Aero has standing to oppose the City's renewal application. Although not so captioned, the Galv-Aero Letter is substantially a petition to deny because it contains allegations which Galv-Aero believes would support denial of the City's renewal application or designation of the application for hearing. The Commission's Rules provide that petitions to deny must contain "specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that the petitioner is a party in interest and that grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest." Moreover, "[s]uch allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof." In order to establish standing, the petitioner must allege facts sufficient to show that grant of the protested application would cause direct injury to the petitioner. 5. We conclude that Galv-Aero has not established standing as a party in interest. Its letter fails to recite whether, and in what manner, Galv-Aero would be injured by grant of the City's renewal application. Assuming arguendo that Galv-Aero had standing to bring its petition to deny, its letter is procedurally deficient as a petition to deny because the Galv-Aero allegations are not supported by an affidavit from a person averred to have personal knowledge of the facts alleged. Given that the Galv-Aero Letter is procedurally deficient as a petition to deny, we will treat its letter, for purposes of this Order, as an informal objection and address the substance of Galv-Aero's contentions. 6. Based on our review of the record in this matter, we find that Galv-Aero has failed to demonstrate that grant of the City's renewal application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest. First, Galv-Aero alleges that the City "has no business operating an aircraft radio station." Section 87.19 of the Commission's Rules governs eligibility for unicom licenses and bars only foreign governments and their representatives from holding such a license. Because the City is not a foreign government, we find that the City meets the basic eligibility requirements for holding a unicom license and reject Gal-Aero's contentions to the contrary. 7. Second, Galv-Aero alleges that City employees, lacking familiarity with the Commission's Rules, have created unspecified "hazardous situations." We find that Galv-Aero's allegation is unsubstantiated and vague, particularly with respect to the claimed "hazardous situations." Moreover, Galv-Aero's contentions regarding this issue is inconsistent with Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, which requires that informal objections must "set forth clearly and concisely the facts relied upon." 8. Third, we note that Galv-Aero's claim that the City favors one of two FBOs on the Galveston airport would, if true, constitute a violation of Section 87.213(a) of the Commission's Rules. Section 87.213(a) requires that unicom licensees "must provide impartial information concerning available ground services." However, in the absence of such supporting factual information, we conclude that Galv-Aero has failed to substantiate its claim of discriminatory treatment with any factual detail. Galv-Aero's claim of favoritism must be rejected because it is inconsistent with Section 1.41 of the Rules. 9. Lastly, Galv-Aero contends that the City has hired employees of an FBO to operate the unicom station, thereby creating an impermissible conflict of interest. We note, as an initial matter, that the Commission has no rule or policy that prohibits a licensee from hiring employees of an FBO to operate a unicom station. Thus, the mere existence of such an arrangement would not appear to be a matter that the Commission would need to resolve. Accordingly, we find no reason to deny the City's renewal application because its unicom station may be operated by the employees of an FBO. Similarly, we find Galv-Aero's contention that the City should restrict its employees to providing security services at the airport, and that advisory services should be offered by an FBO rather than the City, is not a matter upon which the Commission must pass. In this connection, we note that no established Commission rule or policy requires such a restriction and Galv-Aero has failed to demonstrate the need for such a restriction in this instance. IV. Conclusion 10. We find that Galv-Aero's informal objection is devoid of factual information warranting denial of the City's renewal application or designating it for hearing. Accordingly, we conclude that the Galv-Aero Letter must be denied. V. Ordering Clauses 11. IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 309; and Sections 87.27 and 87.215 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  87.27 and 87.215, the application of the City of Galveston for renewal of the license of aeronautical advisory Station KCX7 filed on November 13, 1995 IS GRANTED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 309; and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.41, the Galv-Aero Flight Center Letter filed on December 7, 1995 IS DENIED. 13. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau j:\wilhelm\aviation\galv4.ord