Advocacy and policy

Proposed Bill

This page now holds your draft bill, the supporting memo, and the optional short cover note to a legislator, preserved as working draft text for the site.

Current draft

What this page includes

Full bill text
Supporting memo
Optional legislator cover note
Downloadable draft file

Next additions

Ready for expansion

Named campaign summary
Supporter email form wiring
PDF download version
Status updates and testimony links

Campaign material

Policy language supported by place.

The bill page can carry a stronger civic feeling when it is paired with local landscape imagery instead of reading like a bare memo dump.

That keeps the page forceful, visual, and easier for supporters to stay engaged with.

Hawaii context

Draft policy rooted in the islands.

Use images like this to reinforce that the page is about Hawaii, public space, and the environment people are trying to protect.

Draft legislation

A Bill for an Act Relating to Aerosol Sunscreen Products

Download Draft Text Share a Consumer Report

DRAFT BILL

A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO AEROSOL SUNSCREEN PRODUCTS.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:

SECTION 1. The legislature finds that Hawaii has a compelling interest in protecting public health, preserving environmental quality, and safeguarding the health and enjoyment of residents and visitors in shared public spaces.

The legislature further finds that aerosol sunscreen products create unique concerns not presented in the same manner by non-aerosol topical products because aerosolized products are dispersed into the surrounding air and environment, where they may contact persons other than the intended user and may contribute to unwanted bystander exposure.

The legislature additionally finds that Hawaii has previously acted to regulate the sale and distribution of certain sunscreen products in order to address environmental harms, including harms to marine ecosystems, demonstrating the State’s established interest in sunscreen-related regulation. Hawaii law already prohibits the sale, offer for sale, and distribution of nonprescription sunscreens containing oxybenzone or octinoxate, subject to specified exceptions.

The legislature further finds that Hawaii law already recognizes the legitimacy of regulating products and conduct that create involuntary airborne exposure in shared spaces. Chapter 328J, Hawaii Revised Statutes, restricts smoking in numerous public places and workplaces, and Hawaii law also extends those restrictions to electronic smoking devices, reflecting a legislative judgment that persons in shared spaces should not be involuntarily exposed to airborne substances emitted by others. The Hawaii Department of Health states that electronic smoking devices are prohibited wherever smoking is prohibited by state law.

The legislature further finds that public-health authorities have concluded there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke and have supported comprehensive smoke-free policies as a means of preventing involuntary exposure in shared spaces. The legislature finds these public-health principles relevant by analogy when evaluating aerosolized consumer products that disperse substances beyond the intended user and into shared air.

Accordingly, the purpose of this Act is to prohibit the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, and distribution in the State of aerosol sunscreen products.

SECTION 2. Chapter 342D, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

“§342D- Aerosol sunscreen products; prohibition.
(a) Beginning January 1, 2027, no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, distribute for sale, or otherwise distribute in the State any aerosol sunscreen product.

(b) For purposes of this section, “aerosol sunscreen product” means any sunscreen product, including any over-the-counter drug product marketed, labeled, or otherwise intended for application to the skin for sun protection, that is dispensed or capable of being dispensed from:

(1) A pressurized container;
(2) A propellant-driven container;
(3) A spray can;
(4) A continuous spray container;
(5) A bag-on-valve system;
(6) A pump spray container; or
(7) Any other device that emits the product in spray, mist, fog, atomized, or substantially airborne form.

(c) This section shall apply regardless of whether the aerosol sunscreen product is marketed or described as reef safe, mineral-based, chemical-based, broad spectrum, water resistant, for children, for adults, or by any similar term.

(d) This section shall not apply to:

(1) A prescription product lawfully dispensed pursuant to a prescription issued by a licensed health care provider; or
(2) A product used solely for military, emergency response, or occupational settings, as may be further defined by the department by rule.

(e) Any person who violates this section shall be subject to:

(1) A written warning for a first violation;
(2) A civil fine of not less than $500 and not more than $2,000 for a second violation; and
(3) A civil fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 for each subsequent violation.

(f) Each aerosol sunscreen product manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, or distributed in violation of this section shall constitute a separate violation.

(g) The department of health shall enforce this section and may adopt rules pursuant to chapter 91 as necessary to implement and enforce this section, including rules relating to inspections, notices of violation, administrative hearings, product holds, removal from sale, and disposal procedures.

(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the sale or distribution of any product otherwise prohibited by law, or to prohibit the sale or distribution of non-aerosol sunscreen products otherwise permitted by law.”

SECTION 3. Section 342D-21, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending its section title to read as follows:

“§342D-21 Sale and distribution of certain sunscreen products; prohibition.”

SECTION 4. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New statutory material is underscored.

SECTION 5. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Supporting document

Supporting Memo

SUPPORTING MEMO
Purpose and Findings in Support of Proposed Legislation Prohibiting Aerosol Sunscreen Products in Hawaii
1. Purpose

This measure is intended to prohibit the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, and distribution of aerosol sunscreen products in the State of Hawaii due to concerns regarding involuntary bystander exposure, airborne drift in shared public spaces, and environmental dispersion.

2. Why this bill is legally and politically structured this way

This draft follows Hawaii’s standard bill format by pairing a findings/purpose section with a direct statutory amendment. Hawaii’s Legislative Reference Bureau describes this structure as a common and accepted approach for measures introduced in the Legislature.

The bill is drafted as a sales and distribution prohibition, rather than as a possession ban, because that is generally cleaner to administer, easier for retailers and distributors to understand, and more practical to enforce at the state level.

3. Why Hawaii is an appropriate jurisdiction

Hawaii has already exercised its police power to regulate sunscreen products for environmental reasons. Hawaii law prohibits the sale and distribution of certain nonprescription sunscreen products containing oxybenzone or octinoxate, which establishes that sunscreen regulation is already an accepted subject of Hawaii legislation.

That existing statutory framework makes Hawaii a credible and logical forum for a narrower, category-specific restriction focused on aerosol delivery systems.

4. Public-health and legal-policy rationale

This measure is grounded in a straightforward public-space principle: people in shared environments should not be involuntarily exposed to airborne substances emitted by others.

Hawaii has already adopted that principle in the smoking context. Chapter 328J, Hawaii Revised Statutes, restricts smoking in many public places and workplaces, and Hawaii extends those protections to electronic smoking devices. The Hawaii Department of Health expressly states that electronic smoking devices are prohibited wherever smoking is prohibited by state law.

At the national level, CDC states that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke and that comprehensive smoke-free policies are the way to fully protect people in shared spaces from involuntary exposure. CDC has also published research examining secondhand aerosol exposure from e-cigarettes in public places, underscoring that aerosolized products can create non-user exposure concerns.

This bill does not claim that aerosol sunscreen is legally identical to cigarette smoke. Instead, it uses the same accepted policy logic: when a product disperses airborne substances beyond the intended user and into shared air, the State may regulate that mode of delivery to protect bystanders and public space.

5. Why the bill targets aerosol form rather than all sunscreen

This bill is designed to be as adoptable as possible. It does not seek to eliminate all sunscreen products. It targets the specific delivery mechanism that creates the strongest argument for state intervention: aerosolized dispersion into shared air and surrounding space.

That narrowing feature improves defensibility and makes the bill easier to explain:

it is not a ban on sun-care products generally;

it is not a ban on lotions, creams, sticks, or other non-aerosol formats;

it is a targeted restriction on a category that creates bystander and environmental drift concerns.

6. Why the bill includes broad device language

The definition is intentionally written to include not only traditional pressurized aerosol cans, but also pump sprays, continuous sprays, bag-on-valve systems, and similar containers that emit the product in mist or substantially airborne form. This reduces evasion through packaging redesign or relabeling.

7. Why the bill includes exceptions

The limited exceptions for prescription products and certain military, emergency response, or occupational uses are included to make the bill more politically workable and less vulnerable to criticism that it is inflexible in unusual contexts.

8. Why enforcement is assigned to the Department of Health

The Department of Health is the most natural state-level enforcement agency because the bill is grounded in public-health and environmental-protection concerns. Explicitly assigning enforcement helps avoid the ambiguity that has previously been noted in public discussion about enforcement of Hawaii’s sunscreen restrictions.

9. Suggested one-sentence advocacy summary

Hawaii should prohibit aerosol sunscreen products because they disperse substances into shared air and public space, creating involuntary bystander exposure and unnecessary environmental drift that non-aerosol products do not create in the same way.