Laserfiche WebLink
9ki <br /> COUNTY OF HAWAII ;I-(6` / .i STATE OF HAWAII <br /> '...',):.!}1.g--*._--- <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 714 20 <br /> A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL RESOURCES <br /> DEFENSE COUNCIL, ET AL.'s, AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN CASE NO. 20-1025 (LEAD) <br /> AND CASE NO. 20-1138 (CONSOLIDATED) ENTITLED: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH <br /> TRUST, ET AL.,AND CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. <br /> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA, <br /> RESPONDENTS, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE <br /> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. <br /> WHEREAS, on July 29, 2020, Environmental Health Trust, et al., and Children's Health <br /> Defense, et al. ("Petitioners") filed its Joint Opening Brief in a Petition for Review of an Order <br /> issued by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), in Case No. 20-1025 (Lead) and <br /> Case No. 20-1138 (Consolidated), in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of <br /> Columbia Circuit entitled: Environmental Health Trust, et al., and Children's Health Defense, et <br /> al., Petitioners, vs. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, <br /> Respondents; and <br /> WHEREAS, Petitioners contend that during the FCC's reassessment of its 1996 safety <br /> regulations which limit consumers' and the general public's exposure levels to radiofrequency <br /> and electromagnetic fields ("RF/EMF") emitted from wireless devices and equipment, the <br /> Petitioners and others submitted extensive research, peer-reviewed studies and comments, <br /> completed since 1996, focused on significant health and environmental risks of RF/EMF, that the <br /> FCC's now outdated regulations, did not take into account; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Order under review questions the FCC's decision not to amend the <br /> RF/EMF exposure regulations or related procedures it relies upon, to test and certify cellphones <br /> for marketing and sale; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Petition for Review of the FCC Order raises legal questions, including, <br /> but not limited to, the following: <br /> "1. Did the FCC violate the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") when it <br /> failed to: (i) consider any evidence demonstrating that the 1996 RF/EMF regulations do <br /> not protect against numerous health and environmental risks; or (ii) explain why such <br /> evidence did not warrant amending the exposure regulations and cellphone testing <br /> procedures to better protect human health and the environment? <br /> 2. Did the FCC violate the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") <br /> when it failed to: (i) explain why NEPA does not apply to the Order and its reassessment <br /> of the 1996 RF/EMF exposure regulations and the cellphone testing protocols; or (ii) <br /> conduct an environmental analysis regarding its decision not to amend the exposure <br /> limits or testing procedures? <br />