Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Petition of 360o Communications Company for) Declaratory Ruling that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)) of the Communications Act Preempts State Court ) Actions Limiting the Construction of Cellular ) Facilities Based Upon Radio Frequency Emission ) Concerns ) ) ) ORDER Adopted: June 9, 1999 Released: June 9, 1999 By the Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: 1. On October 27, 1997, 360o Communications Company (360o) filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Petition) seeking a declaratory ruling that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act preempts state courts from regulating or enjoining the placement or construction of cellular facilities based upon radio frequency (RF) emission concerns, where such facilities comply with federal emission regulations. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) provides that "[n]o State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." In its Petition, 360o states that after it began construction on a new transmission tower in Franklin County, Texas, a group of area residents filed suit against it in the 8th Judicial District Court of Texas to enjoin construction of the tower and to claim damages for nuisance from alleged harmful effects of RF emissions. The trial court issued a temporary injunction, which the Texas Court of Appeals overturned and returned the issue to the trial court. The 8th Judicial District Court of Texas subsequently issued an order, dated September 29, 1997, deferring the matter to the Commission. 360o then filed its Petition. 2. On December 3, 1997, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) invited public comment on the Petition. Fourteen parties filed comments and four parties filed reply comments. Subsequently, the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit against 360o filed a Petition to Republish Public Notice, alleging that the Bureau's notice inviting public comment did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, and 360o filed a Motion to Strike Unauthorized Pleading against the plaintiffs' petition. 3. On April 6, 1999, 360o filed a Request for Voluntary Withdrawal of Petition. 360o states that the parties have settled the underlying controversy in state court that gave rise to the petition. 360o therefore requests that the petition be dismissed without further Commission action. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 154(j), and authority delegated under section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, that 360o Communications Company's Request for Voluntary Withdrawal of Petition filed on April 6, 1999, IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 154(j), and sections 0.331 and 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331 and 1.2, that 360o Communications Company's Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed on October 27, 1997, IS DISMISSED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 154(j), and authority delegated under section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, that Rock Grundman & Associates' Petition to Republish Public Notice filed on January 28, 1998, and 360o Communications Company's Motion to Strike Unauthorized Pleading filed on February 2, 1998, are DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Steven E. Weingarten Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau