The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES 714 Draft 01 2018-2020 9ki COUNTY OF HAWAII ;I-(6` / .i STATE OF HAWAII '...',):.!}1.g--*._--- RESOLUTION NO. 714 20 A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, ET AL.'s, AMICUS BRIEF FILED IN CASE NO. 20-1025 (LEAD) AND CASE NO. 20-1138 (CONSOLIDATED) ENTITLED: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST, ET AL.,AND CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. WHEREAS, on July 29, 2020, Environmental Health Trust, et al., and Children's Health Defense, et al. ("Petitioners") filed its Joint Opening Brief in a Petition for Review of an Order issued by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), in Case No. 20-1025 (Lead) and Case No. 20-1138 (Consolidated), in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit entitled: Environmental Health Trust, et al., and Children's Health Defense, et al., Petitioners, vs. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents; and WHEREAS, Petitioners contend that during the FCC's reassessment of its 1996 safety regulations which limit consumers' and the general public's exposure levels to radiofrequency and electromagnetic fields ("RF/EMF") emitted from wireless devices and equipment, the Petitioners and others submitted extensive research, peer-reviewed studies and comments, completed since 1996, focused on significant health and environmental risks of RF/EMF, that the FCC's now outdated regulations, did not take into account; and WHEREAS, the Order under review questions the FCC's decision not to amend the RF/EMF exposure regulations or related procedures it relies upon, to test and certify cellphones for marketing and sale; and WHEREAS, the Petition for Review of the FCC Order raises legal questions, including, but not limited to, the following: "1. Did the FCC violate the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") when it failed to: (i) consider any evidence demonstrating that the 1996 RF/EMF regulations do not protect against numerous health and environmental risks; or (ii) explain why such evidence did not warrant amending the exposure regulations and cellphone testing procedures to better protect human health and the environment? 2. Did the FCC violate the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") when it failed to: (i) explain why NEPA does not apply to the Order and its reassessment of the 1996 RF/EMF exposure regulations and the cellphone testing protocols; or (ii) conduct an environmental analysis regarding its decision not to amend the exposure limits or testing procedures? 3. Did the FCC violate the APA when it failed to (i) recognize and make some provision for those who have or will contract Radiation Sickness from RF/EMF exposure; (ii) resolve or establish some process to resolve case-by-case accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") and/or Fair Housing Act ("FHA"); or (iii) resolve or establish some process to resolve case-by-case individual objections to nonconsensual RF/EMF exposure or uninvited RF/EMF property instruction?"; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2020, Amici Curiae,Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., ("Amici Curiae") filed its Amicus Brief in support of Petitioner Environmental Health Trust, et al., and Petitioner Children's Health Defense, et al. 's Joint Opening Brief in Case No. 20- 1025 (Lead) and Case No. 20-1138 (Consolidated); and WHEREAS, amicus curiae ("amici curiae, "plural) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it and literally means `friend of the court"; and WHEREAS, Amici Curiae supports and relies upon, environmental and public health protections for all and seeks inclusive decision-making processes by NEPA to ensure that federal government decisions (such as licensing of use of the spectrum to provide wireless services), are informed by the best available science and input from citizens affected by those decisions; and WHEREAS, NEPA, signed into law in 1970 by President Nixon, is an action-forcing statute applicable to all federal agencies and its commitment is to "prevent or eliminate damage to the environment . . . by focusing government and public attention on the environmental effects of proposed agency action.", and requires "that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process."; and WHEREAS, NEPA ensures that federal government decisions, such as licensing of use to provide wireless services, are informed by the best available science as well as input from citizens, affected by such decisions; and WHEREAS, NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality's ("CEQ") regulations require agencies to "insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the [agency's] discussions and analyses....", and, where no data is presented in the NEPA document, that it must justify not obtaining such data; and WHEREAS, Amici Curiae asserts that the FCC has not satisfied its obligations under NEPA, including, but not limited to, the following: 1) the FCC failed to fulfill its legal obligation to protect the public from radio-frequency hazards under NEPA and the Telecommunications Act ("TCA")j 2) when Congress concentrated authority over radiofrequency radiation in the FCC, it imposed a duty to protect as well as inform; 3) the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the FCC to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emission and, that the FCC failed to respond to evidence of environmental harm; and 2 4) with respect to radio-frequency standards, the burden rests with the FCC and it must show the standards are safe and reliable; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII concurs and supports Amici Curiae Natural Resources Defense Council, et al.'s Amicus Brief in Case No. 20-1025 (Lead) and 20-1138 (Consolidated) before the United States Court of Appeals For the District of Columbia Circuit entitled, Environmental Health Trust, et al. and Children's Health Defense, et al., Petitioners, vs. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the County Clerk shall transmit a copy of this resolution to Sharon Buccino, Esq., Counsel for Amici Curiae Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., Edward B. Meyers, Esq., Counsel for Petitioners Environmental Health Trust, et al., Case No. 20-1025, W. Scott McCollough, Esq., Counsel for Petitioners Children's Health Defense, et al., Honorable Mayor Harry Kim, Honorable David Ige, Governor, Honorable Josh Green, Lieutenant Governor, Honorable U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono, Honorable U.S. Senator Brian Schatz, Honorable U.S. Representative Ed Case, Honorable U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard, Honorable Senator Lorraine Inouye, Honorable Senator Russell E. Ruderman, Honorable Senator Kaiali`i Kahele, Honorable Senator Dru Kanuha, Honorable Representative Mark Nakashima, Honorable Representative Chris Todd, Honorable Representative Richard Onishi, Honorable Representative Joy San Buenaventura, Honorable Representative Richard Creagan, Honorable Representative Nicole Lowen, Honorable Representative David Tarnas. Dated at Hilo , Hawai`i, this 2nd day of September , 20 20. •DUCED BY: „ere, eir 41111114 COUNCIL MEM:' R ! _I, OF HAWAII COUNCIL ME BER, COUNTY OF HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL ROLL CALL VOTE County of Hawai`i AYES NOES ABS EX Hilo, Hawai`i CHUNG X DAVID X I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by EOFF X the vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER X County of Hawaii on September 2, 2020 KIERKIEWICZ X LEE LOY X ATTEST: POINDEXTER X RICHARDS X VILLEGAS X 9 0 0 0 AltikReference: C-1041/Waived GREDC OU y" L ' !I:.- RPERSON & PRESI ING OFFICER RESOLUTION NO. 714 20 3