ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST, ET AL. PETITIONERS V. FCC AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS

“For the reasons given above, we grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer.

It must, in particular,

• (i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines,
• (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and
• (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.

To be clear, we take no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiation — we merely conclude that

the Commission’s cursory analysis of material record evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. As the dissenting opinion indicates, there may be good reasons why the various studies in the record, only some of which we have cited here, do not warrant changes to the Commission’s guidelines. But we cannot supply reasoning in the agency’s stead, see SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87–88 (1943), and here the Commission has failed to provide any reasoning to which we may defer.

So ordered.”