There are currently no bills in legislation relating to a ban on the sale or use of gasoline powered leaf blowers. The most recent bills died in committee this year (2026). Bills have been circulating since at least 2010; long enough for the public, retailers, landscape companies, and government entities (including the health department) to be prepared for (and able to enforce) a complete ban.
The widespread, chronic, and unnecessary use and operation of gas leaf blowers is an affront to human health and well-being; a blight on the environment; and a blaring contradiction to Hawaii’s self-declared climate emergency. The poorly regulated use and operation of gas leaf blowers undermines community well-being and violates the terms of social justice. It is a moral as well as a social injustice.
The constitution provides for a clean, healthful environment. This environmental right, both legal and natural, is afforded to all residents, in particular to future generations, and is grounded in Hawaiian principles. Our government is obligated and has a duty to provide for this right whether a person cares or not about gas leaf blower pollution. The harms are not subjective. A clean, healthful environment is a universal right. This right supersedes the economic position of retailers and trade associations whose health and well-being is also harmed, and holds those who would make laws ensuring these rights, responsible for the ongoing harm.
Dont forget methods and principles of ancient Hawaiians instead of leaf blower and string trimmer
Why should we ban gasoline powered leaf blowers and string trimmers?
Chronic, widespread exposure to air toxins and fugitive dust
Chronic, widespread, and unregulatable noise exposure
Near-term climate pollution in a state that has declared a climate emergency
Unregulated microplastic pollution in an ocean state
Moral injury it is the helplessness, especially with the noise, that is often so damaging
Of course! Gasoline leaf blowers are not the only culprits, however, they are unnecessary culprits and their use and operation is unjustifiable
We want a clean healthful environment
What did the most recent bills look like and why did they die in committee?
(1) 2023-2024 Bills (air pollution)
Senate Bill (SB) 54, and its companion (HB) 575, proposed to ban the sale, offer of sale, and use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers in any urban land use district because the ‘exhaust and sound emissions from gasoline-powered leaf blowers are a great concern for the State's public health and welfare’.
Government entities were not to be exempted.
Why did these bills die?
2023-2024 Testimony: SB 54 and companion bill HB 575
In short:
It seems to be the combination of opposition from the Retail Merchants of Hawaii and OPEI, claiming economic harm, as well as comments from the attorney general, which forced out the appeal to air pollution (characterized as ‘exhaust emissions’). The bill was rewritten to apply to noise pollution alone. On this the health department cited the inability to properly regulate noise from leaf blowing because it is a mobile, as opposed to stationary, source of pollution. Enforcement of any ban would require funds and staff that the health department did not have.
2023-2024 Testimony: SB 54 and companion bill HB 575
The long read:
(i) Conflict with federal government regarding emissions standards?
State Attorney General Lopez advised the committee that ‘the bill's mandate to prohibit the sale, offer for sale, or operation of gasoline-powered leaf blowers could be deemed an emissions standard, which is preempted by the CAA’ (Clean Air Act).
‘No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions from either of the following new nonroad engines or nonroad vehicles . . . .’.
42 U.S.C. § 7543(e)(1).
The state is not at liberty to create its own regulations regarding gas leaf blower exhaust emissions. Hawaii is at liberty, however, to regulate ‘noise concerns’ which are not federally regulated.
⁉️ Is this right?
In June 2026, the US district court of New Jersey found that a ban on ‘the use of gas-powered leaf blowers year-round on both private and public property:
‘“does not impose a quantifiable emissions limit, require pollution-limiting equipment or after-treatment specification, or dictate engine-emissions criteria” and therefore does not impose a “standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions” in violation of the Clean Air Act’.
On appeal the court found that plaintiffs (residents and landscape companies) had no grounds for claiming economic harm.
This legally validates the arguments on this website with relation to a ban on the use and operation of gasoline powered leaf blowers (and string trimmers), insofar as a ban must necessarily appeal to air pollution.
Contra Attorney General Lopez there is no conflict with federal law regarding ‘in use’ equipment.
Contra OPEI , the field pre-emption
In the letter of advice, Attorney General Lopez also points out that ‘Hawaii is not precluded from regulating the use and operation of leaf blowers, including hours of operation, altogether’. Again, the interpretation here suggests that we can regulate noise but not air pollution. Which is for all intents and purposes, true . . . of new equipment.
If a gas leaf blower is ‘in service’, the emissions produced are no longer in the control of the EPA or the state. They are controlled by the owner, which would preempt the possibility of the state ‘adopt or attempt to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions. A ban on use and operation is ban is a ban on use and operation, not a limit on emissions. A limit indicates an amount. Zero is not a possible amount.
It seems possible that a ban on the ‘sale’ of new gas leaf blowers because of ‘exhaust emissions”, might constitute a ‘control’ of emissions of new equipment not ‘in service’.
However, No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions
but this advice is conflating ‘sale and use’ as opposed to ‘use and operation’.
without further clarification of the advice, which our legislators can can secure, we have to interpret the results
We are trying to stop the operation because that is what harms us. we already have seen that efforts to do a ban on ‘noise control are fruitless in their current state.
hence ‘use’ construed as when, where, for how long (time of use) is available to the state and local government and points to a ban based on noise (States and locals can make their their own standards)
even if as Lopez argues, ‘Gasoline-powered leaf blowers may be deemed a nonroad engine’ the target of the ordinance is ‘in use’ engines
EPA regulations for non road engines(including gas leaf blowers) ‘address only the permissible emission rates from new, certified products’. Thus, ‘State and local governments have limited authority to set emission standards for new products’ (the attainment clause). However, ‘they may adopt regulations that restrict the use and operation of most products that are no longer new’.
‘Most’ merely appears to preclude `new locomotives'' and `new engines used in a locomotive’. ‘New’ means that the equipment has not been sold to an end user and ‘put into service’. That is, it is still on the shelf, brand new, at the retail store; it has not been used or operated. Once the equipment is put into service, States and local governments are at liberty to restrict such use and operation.
Thus, the proposed 2027-2028 bill is not enforcing an emissions standard it is enforcing a ban on use and operation, i.e. leaf blowing in and of itself.
The issue with ‘exhaust emissions’ appears to be one of terminology. Unless a ban on gas leaf blowers equates to a zero emissions standard on new gas leaf blowers, which is impossible, then it’s not clear that we should be afraid of conflicting with federal law. The ban is not for the sake of ‘exhaust emissions’, it is for the sake of human, environmental, and climate health caused by use and operation.
the ordinance would restrict leaf blower use and operation, not an emission standard on zero emissions
zero emissions —is zero a standard? there is n standard to enforce, can ‘zero’ be limited
a ban on sale ‘“The manufacturer’s right
to sell federally approved vehicles is meaningless in the absence of a purchaser’s right to buy
them” what I said
‘the Ordinance to protect its residents from
the adverse health and environmental effects of leaf blowing, not the emissions generated by leaf
blower engines, which is well within its police power.’ orig
the ordinance is to provide Hawaii residents a clean, healthful environment, to protect from harm
stop
In the letter of advice, Attorney General Lopez also points out that ‘Hawaii is not precluded from regulating the use and operation of leaf blowers, including hours of operation, altogether’. The interpretation here to be that we can regulate noise but not air pollution.
Prohibition is a regulation that necessarily restricts use and operation to nowhere, never, for no amount of time (within a stated boundary). Use and operation itself is what is being regulated, not exhaust emissions, or air pollution as such. The EPA does not mean to say that because there are emissions standards that we must endure air pollution. In attainment, we simply cannot change the standardised amount of criteria pollutants coming out of new equipment.
If gas leaf blowers are banned, there is no reason to sell them. However, local businesses would not be barred from selling their excess inventory to out of state buyers or to anyone who wants a ‘new’ piece of equipment they cannot use or operate.
EPA’s ‘emission standard’ ‘limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants’. For mobile sources of air pollution, e.g. gas leaf blowers; standards are set for the ‘specific pollutants being emitted’ (6 criteria pollutants).
The ‘standard’ is a limit on the amount (a numerical or
technological requirement that engines or vehicles must meet)
Simply, if Hawaii did want to impose a ‘standard’, for example less of the criteria pollutants), catalysts, particle filters,
it could not, then its attempt would indeed be preempted by the fact that it is attainment, as AG Lopez argues.
But this is not what the ordinance aims to achieve,
Notably, the criteria pollutants do not include black carbon put this in climate
it is clear, however that terminology such as ‘exhaust emissions’ is better avoided altogether. This does not mean that any ban related to air pollution must also be avoided altogether. (noise control instead). as some have presumed
🔐 even though gas leaf blowers, which by definition, blow leaves, dust, and debris, cause fine particulate emissions.” (air pollution) restrictions also apply to zero emission electric leaf blowers (time of use). AND SHOULD
following the original ‘T‘he Ordinance concerns the public-
health and quality-of-life consequences of blowing leaves rather than emissions of leaf blower
engines. Thus, the Ordinance, by its own terms, regulates leaf-blowing,
not the engines that perform it. (italics added)
Simply, if Hawaii did want to impose a restriction, for example less of the criteria pollutants), catalysts, particle filters,
it could not
But this is not what the ordinance aims to achieve
Contra Lopez and OPEI Regarding field exemption. Field preemption occurs “when Congress has regulated an area so pervasively that it has not left room for state regulation. This is presumably the grounds of OPEI’s ‘sole jurisdiction’
‘Field preemption requires a federal regulatory scheme so pervasive as to make reasonable
the inference that Congress “left no room” for the States to supplement it’ see original
no epa standard on ‘use’ federal
law does not require the use of gas-powered leaf blowers anywhere; CAA Title II regulates
engines, not the choice to operate them.’
compliance with both state and federal law is made possible —there is no conflict see origi
In contrast to OPEI’s claim of ‘sole jurisdiction’, the EPA regulation states that ‘State and local governments have limited authority to set emission standards for new products’ (the attainment clause). However, ‘they may adopt regulations that restrict the use and operation of most products that are no longer new’.
This makes room for state law and its power to police. it is not clear and manifest that the
(ii) Electric leaf blowers are cost-prohibitive, inefficient, and unliquidatable
Retail Merchants of Hawaiiopposed SB 54 for the following reasons:
Electric leaf blowers are almost double the cost of gas leaf blowers and thus ‘cost prohibitive for many landscape companies as well as those who take care of their own lawn’.
‘Retailers listen to what their customers want’: ‘There is not a large call for electric leaf blowers’.
‘Technology still needs to be worked on as the equipment has performance issues’.
‘The batteries need constant charging, and some leaf blowers are not as powerful to truly be useful’.
‘[l]ocal businesses would either have to sell these types of gasoline powered blowers at a loss or trash them’.
❗️Is this right?
See response to OPEI immediately below, and response to the Retail Merchants of Hawaii 2024-2025 testimony in the next section.
(iii) No legislation necessary, no authority anyway
⁉️ Is this right?
The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), a private, members only trade association, presents itself as the industry ‘Leader in Power Technology and Innovation: In agreement with the Retail merchants of Hawaii, who claim that some electric powered equipment is essentially useless; OPEI argues that gasoline powered equipment has more power and is cheaper for commercial purposes because power, technology, and innovation with regard to batteries is currently lacking.
In a seeming contradiction to the Retail Merchants of Hawaii, who claim that there is no ‘large call for electric blowers’, OPEI argues that zero-emissions equipment (ZEE):
‘is the number one driver of OPE demand and future industry growth’
‘Electric “handheld” leaf blowers and electric hedge trimmers represented approximately 80% of all handheld leaf blower and hedge trimmers shipments in 2022.
The purpose of the inadvertent contradiction is to argue to that ‘the majority of “handheld” products shipped are already ZEE’. Gas leaf blowers will eventually die out anyway, so legislation is unnecessary. Nonethless, it will still be a while because technology needs ‘further advancements’ for the big money makers (commercial landscapers) to be able to get as much efficiency (profit) out of them.
OPEI seems to have forgotten that the problem is chronic air and noise pollution, now, that is, the public’s health, and the climate’s health right this moment. Is it feasible to get rid of something that creates widespread harm unnecessarily? It is not feasible to those who profit from it. Why should people continue to suffer air and noise pollution until technology that will allow commercial landscapers to make the same amount of profit with electric, evolves?
No one wants to argue that gas leaf blowers are the only culprits, but their unnecessary contribution to fossil fuel pollution is nonetheless widely undisputed. Is this not why the EPA has emission standards?
What are the standard arguments from OPEI in opposition to bans around the nation?
OPEI argues that ‘“Facts” comparing outdoor power equipment emissions to automobiles are not rooted in sound data and are false’.
This relates to well-established claims against gas leaf blowers, used by our own legislators, for example, that ‘use of a commercial gasoline-powered leaf blower for one hour emits as much smog-forming pollution as a 2016 Toyota Camry being driven one thousand one hundred miles, and more than three times as much pollution as a commercial gasoline-powered lawn mower’ (from HB 575).
The reason is that gas leaf blowers are cannot be regulated in the same way as car as trucks because they are not conducive to catalysts or particulate filters. (Emissions are necessarily worse regardless of comparisons with cars and trucks).
(1) In response, OPEI argues that ‘the EPA is on its third phase of pollutant controls for small engine-powered equipment, resulting in up to 90% reductions in exhaust gas and evaporative emissions from previously unregulated machines’.
While there is no doubt that OPEI has had a significant impact on the reduction of small engine pollution over the past 30 years, the third phase alone does not account for the 90%, nor does it specifically apply to gas leaf blowers or string trimmers, it applies to all kinds of small engine equipment, e.g. ‘lawn and garden equipment, utility vehicles, generators, and a variety of other construction, farm, and industrial equipment’.
Further, according to the EPA final rule announcement for the third phase: ‘[w]e are not adopting new exhaust emission standards for handheld emissions’. ‘Handheld’ presumably meaning gas leaf blowers and string trimmers (bold added).
What was adopted were new evaporative emissions standards of 45% reduction concerning specific fuel emissions (for all small non road spark ignition engines). This is good news regarding the stink of toxic gasoline fumes, but gas leaf blowers still emit particulates and gases (exhaust) that are difficult to contain given the incomplete combustion of two stroke engines (cite). Thus, they are difficult to regulate, as demonstrated by the lack of a new exhaust standard with phase 3 (circa 2011-212).
OPIE member’s own testing contradicts scientific studies on battery life.
One wonders why battery technology has advanced with residential equipment, but not commercial.
(2) OPEI, on its website, and in testimony around the nation, cites Attorney General Lopez’s comments regarding field exemption and attainment and claims that ‘[t]he U.S. EPA Has Sole Jurisdiction for Small Engine Emission Regulations’. (See response above).
(iv) Gas leaf blowers are mobile sources of pollution; enforcement is not feasible:
The Department of Health , responsible for such ‘public health and welfare’, argued that ‘[e]nforcement against gasoline-powered leaf blowers would be extremely difficult due to their mobility and duration of use. In addition, , '[a]ny new mandate will require additional resources for the amendment of rules and serious enforcement’ which is not in the budget. ‘Proposed requirements will require additional staff time and effort’. Further, ‘[t]he intent of 342F, Hawaii Revised Statutes was to regulate noise sources that are either fairly constant in nature, stationary, or restricted to a certain location, and can feasibly be enforced’ [italics added].
⁉️ Is this right?
It seems that catching gas leaf blower operators in the act of polluting and harming would require constant boots on the ground and money to fund them. Enforcement can’t be everywhere at once. (like gas leaf blowers). But anyway, by the very fact of their mobile nature, the landscape crew would be gone before enforcement could arrive. As such, only stationary sources of noise pollution come under the health department jurisdiction with regard to Community Noise Control. This seems to be why it is only time of use that can be regulated, i.e. where, when and for how long a gas leaf blower can operate.
With stationarypolluters (e.g. a generator), an enforcement officer can literally go to the stationary property (certain location), measure the noise with a decibel meter, verify the duration, and issue a citation to the owner of the stationary property because the property the generator sits on will not be gone by the time they get there, just like the generator itself (as opposed to a mobile property, such as an RV). It is not the generator that gets a citation, it is the property owner.
It seems that gas leaf blowers are for all intents and purposes no better than car stereos in terms of what can be done about mobile noise pollution.
But, non-road gas leaf blower noise is not like the momentary, literally mobile car stereo blasting ‘excessive noise’ from a mobile property (car), on the road. Just like the generator on a business property, the property (e.g. school, park, business, home, library etc.) on which a gas leaf blower is used and operated is itself stationary, that is, immobile, fixed in place. Gas leaf blower operators produce noise anywhere from 15-120 minutes plus at certain locations (unlike the fleeting car stereo). Moreover, leaf blowing usually occurs after string trimming and clearing. Their work is restricted to the certain house on the corner, or, very often, restricted to all the houses on one certain street on the same day. We can be certain that the street won’t move. Moreover, the day and time of the leaf blower’s operation is generally known, either by a property owner, neighbor, landscape company, government agency, or public entity.
On this, the usual schedule of a landscape or maintenance crew, who indirectly and inadvertently violate the health of children at a school, or the health of people in 90 nearby houses, is ‘fairly constant in nature’ and the use and operation of their gas leaf blowers ‘restricted to certain locations’ for a significant amount of time. Gas leaf blowing is generally constant and predictable.
✅ Funds and feasible enforcement
This means that gas leaf blowers are not strictly mobile, and, as such, enforcement is feasible.
Thus, it seems as though funds collected from a properlysupported community reporting system with strictly enforced fines, would provide the ‘additional resources for the amendment of rules and serious enforcement’ currently lacked by the health department.
Gas leaf blower day and times are fairly constant, restricted to a certain location, and the appearance of gas leaf blowers easily identifiable. This suggests that, once a ban is enacted, an anonymous community reporting system (incorporated into the one already in place i.e. 311 enforcement), which is effectively and graciously managed, will be the foremost means of enforcement.
Community reporting has been successful in enforcing bans around the nation. These are the boots on the ground. People, who have not become complacent, want quiet, clean communities; we can police ourselves with the right, working tools in place. This would be in tandem with a public awareness campaign, another invaluable aid to enforcement; one grounded in the natural law of ‘Aloha Sprit’.
(2) 2024-2025 Bills (noise pollution)
House bill (HB) 30proposed to ban the use of gasoline leaf blowers by any person at any time in urban districts and apply the existing restrictions (time-of-use) to non-gasoline leaf blowers, while increasing fines (presumably for both). Government entities and their agents were not to be exempted.
The bill argued that gasoline powered leaf blowers create noise pollution (excessive decibels), which causes hearing loss and impairs quality of life, thus harming public health and environment. Given that there are ‘quieter alternatives’ to gasoline powered leaf blowers [e.g. battery operated, mulching, rake, grass-cycling], a ban is justified.
‘Gasoline powered leaf blower’ only extended to two stroke engines.
The act was to take effect on approval.
House Bill (HB) 470 HD2proposed to prohibit the sale of any leaf blower (gasoline or battery powered) that does not meet the ANSI B-175.2 class 1 rating beginning July 1, 2028. Government entities are not to be immediately exempted. Fines for violation were to be increased.
The bill argued that leaf blowers (both electric and gasoline powered) create noise pollution (excessive decibels), which causes hearing loss and impairs the quality of life for both the residents and landscape workers of the state.
Given that there are ‘quieter alternatives to loud leaf blowers', prohibition is justified.
The act was not take effect till July 1, 3000, presumably allowing several years for transition.
Senate bill (SB) 365 proposed to prohibit the sale of gasoline powered leaf blowers beginning January 1, 2027. Government entities were not to be exempted.
The bill argues that gasoline powered leaf blowers produce extreme noise (conceived as decibels), pollute the air, and exacerbate climate change.
Given that electric leaf leaf blowers are quieter, cleaner, more efficient, powerful, and affordable than gasoline powered leaf blowers; prohibition is justified.
Why did these bills die in committee?
In short, the Retail Merchants of Hawaii again imply that they will be economically harmed. They appeal to the inefficiency of electric, and point out the potential environmental damage caused by lithium batteries. Shockingly, the superintendent of schools, while agreeing that gas leaf blowers are harmful, appeals to cost and efficiency. The health department has an issue with Ansi.
In response: economic harm is not evidenced. Lithium batteries are recyclable, and, crucially, so are gasoline powered ones.
health department
Of all the places that gas leaf blowers should be prohibited, schools are paramount, since evidence shows that children (future generations) are disproportionately harmed by air and noise pollution.
The long read
health department
A different argument from the health department is that complaints about gas leaf blowers are negligible. No one really complains. This attitude is self-defeating and underserving, but sadly right. What’s the point of complaining if nothing can be done? There are currently no decibel limits on gas leaf blowers and gas leaf blowers can legally be operated all day, non stop, 7 days a week, including holidays. Government entities included. Simply adjusting time of use, however, is not the solution.
Citing the same arguments from 2023-2024 , the Retail Merchants of Hawaii add that:
Because Hawaii is so lush, small locally owned landscaping businesses are necessary for property maintenance.
Batteries make equipment heavier.
Short plug-in electric equipment hinders access, reduces efficiency, and increases time on the job.
‘Hawaii does NOT currently have a recycling program or location for Lithium Batteries’.
Lithium batteries ‘can be prone to overheating and catching fire’ and ‘can lead to safety
hazards, such as fires or explosions’.
‘[W]e do not want to see [lithium batteries] discarded in our landfills as improper disposal of lithium-ion batteries can lead to environmental pollution’.
‘Chemicals within the batteries can leach into the soil and water, causing harm to ecosystems’.
⁉️ Is any of this right
While it’s true that policies should be determined by whether people will be better or worse off, and the claim of the Retail Merchants of Hawaii is that small, locally owned businesses will be economically worse off with a gas leaf blower ban; these business owners, their employees, and the consumers they profit from would nonetheless be better off with a ban. Further, the known harms caused to consumers by the use and operation of gasoline powered leaf blowers would appear to violate the law of Aloha Spirit , a symbolic code of conduct for businesses. Whether they care or not, these people too are exposed to noise and air pollution (and the healthcare burden created by illness and disease related to this pollution).
They too face climate impacts caused by near term black carbon polluters such as gas leaf blowers.
It is hard to believe that in opposition to electric equipment, ‘[r]etailers listen to what their customers ‘want’, when when 93% of Hawaiian residents are concerned about the climate and believe that ‘past warming has been caused by humans’. It is hard to believe that in a state where a clean, healthful environment is enshrined in the constitution, and in a state that was the first to declare a climate emergency, that anyone would want gasoline powered lawn care equipment.
What is demonstrated with this testimony is that the Retail Merchants of Hawaii listen to what (some) of their businesses want, and this is rightly so, but many businesses want to do the right thing, and the obvious potential for economic growth as we necessarily move towards zero emissions is what should now be supported and legislated for. Gasoline powered lawn equipment is a regrettable thing of the past that only seems to expose the power of money. The Retail Merchants of Hawaii should really now be legislating, on behalf of their businesses, for grants, rebates, trade-in programs, and loans, in keeping with our highest principle that the land that sustains us, also has rights.
Efficiency or modern slavery?
In context, the opportunity for economic growth that comes with electrification should not be underestimated (cite). Prices are down; electric/battery equipment is more economical over the long term; and claims of inefficiency are now considered a dead argument.
If we put ‘efficiency’ in its proper context with relation to gas leaf blowers, those who are dispsoroprtionaltely harmed by gas leaf blowers (aside from children) are the economically exploited, wage slave workers who use and operate them. ‘Efficiency’ here equates to cheap labor. Four underpaid, unprotected hazard workers for one small property, wielding cheap gasoline equipment, blowing pollution and toxic fumes around at 200mph, equates to many more properties serviced within the non-stop, 11 hour use and operation window mandated by the public health department.
Efficiency, in this negative sense, contributes to significantly more fugitive dust, harmful noise, and environmental damage at the cost of a worker’s hearing and body organs (cite). Is this not an appalling abuse of human rights, especially given that leaf blowing is not even necessary, regardless of the size of the property (cite the rewinding argument from guardian)?. Thus, as the Retailers of Hawaii argue, the problem with electric is that battery and corded equipment mean less jobs in a day and thus, less money in the bank.
✅ This need for negative ‘efficiency’ is where the cost is prohibitive, not the cost of the equipment or inability to liquidate, since there are ways to compensate for this perceived loss of performance that can be legislated in tandem with a 2027 bill to ban gas leaf blowers and string trimmers; e.g. zero emissions loans, rebates, grants, tax abatement, and trade-in opportunities, many of which are already available and, at least on its face, need only be broadened to cover gasoline powered lawn equipment.
The Retail Merchants of Hawaii inadvertently argue that it’s ok for all of us to be worst off as long as their members make money. Bills proposing a ban on the sale and/or use of gas leaf blowers have been making the rounds for at least 16 years. These retailers and landscape companies have had an excessive amount of time to navigate the transition to zero emissions, and so have our committees. On this, a phase out is not acceptable, an immediate ban is.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The widespread, continuous environmental damage from gas leaf blowers goes without question. But it is also true, as the Retailer Merchants of Hawaii claim, that lithium ion batteries, are potentially hazardous under certain conditions (like crossing the freeway on foot).
The unwitting argument from the Retail Merchants of Hawaii here seems to be that the environment is worse off with electric/battery leaf blowers. Because a gas leaf blower pollutes the environment (every time it is fired up), but doesn’t cause fires or leach chemicals, and a lithium battery has the potential to cause a fire and leach chemicals, gasoline powered equipment is actually better for the environment, and by implication the sale and use of gas leaf blowers should not be banned. This of course does not take into account the rest of the problem; the disproportionate health effects on workers and children caused by these unnecessary air and noise polluters, for example. Clearly, the benefits of electric/battery operated leaf blowers outweigh their risks.
♻️ Lithium batteries can be safely recycled in Hawaii, at transfer stations, drop-off points, retailers, and through buyback programs.
Even better: Hawaii might even profit off of a ban.
♻️♻️ Gas leaf blowers can safely be recycled in Hawaii, too.
https://radiusrecycling.com/locations/21/kapolei-hi
https://radiusrecycling.com/locations/124/puunene-hi
Scrap metal is one of Hawaii’s biggest exports. This does not mean that gas leaf blowers are in some sense good, or that their use and operation is justified by the fact that they can be recycled. And while the amount of scrap might seem negligible, the scrap metal value does provide another incentive for liquidation and should provide strong evidence to our legislators, as well as the Retail Merchants of Hawaii, that a ban on gas leaf blowers is environmentally, morally, and ethically the right thing to do.
‘Iron, steel, and aluminum waste and scrap rank consistently among Hawaii’s top physical commodity exports, generating roughly $40 million to $60 million per year depending on global market prices. [1,2,3]’
if people are putting pressure on small business (ie the OPEI) then thats a separate problem, they have bought into the myths and to enable that ignorance is not an ethical space from which the Hawaii retailers should be coming
blandscaping in a conservation area
(v) Confused priorities
Representing the Department of Education, the Superintendent of Schools argues that
‘The Department recognizes that the sound emissions from leaf blowers, string trimmers, and weed
whackers have a harmful impact on public health and welfare.
While the Department supports the overall concept of HB 470, HD 2, the Department is concerned
about the future cost to replace the inventory of leaf blowers, string trimmers, and weed whackers for
schools throughout the state including those in urban land use districts once these restrictions are put
in place’
The Department is also concerned about the increase in inefficiency since
battery-operated handheld equipment does not operate at the commercial-grade strength necessary
to maintain larger school campuses. The batteries also need to be recharged frequently and have
shorter life spans
Is the superintendent not aware of the harms of air and noise pollution to the children in his care for the greater part of the day? , and this from the superintendent, the super indent should be making a stand more than any other department, these are our children
sue him for neglect down the road
no gas leaf blower, or any leaf blower whatsoever, should ever be on school grounds
harms to children here
get the children to rake the stewardship bill
Air pollution harms more than just lungs and airways
health affects on people
Children and workers are disproportionately harmed.
Gas leaf blowers contribute significantly to air pollution because they are difficult and costly to regulate
(see response to OPEI above).
Hawaiis air pollution is expected to increase climate pollution (no longer in attainment)
‘Harmful effects occur on a continuum of dosage and even at levels below air quality standards previously considered to be safe’. https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(18)32723-5/pdf
Gas leaf blowers significantly contribute to air pollution because they are difficult and costly to regulatable
(see response to OPEI above).
A ban on the use and operation of gas leaf blowers is not an emission standard.
children and workers disproportionately harmed
Moral injury
when we cannot prevent acts that violate our core moral values or ethical codes, for example clean, healthful environment, we are morally injured
Failure to free ourselves forms the harms via legislation, ordinance, lack of enforcement is a violation of the constitutional right to a clean, healthful environment via chronic exposure to the health hazards of gas leaf blowers (and string trimmers/weed whackers) is a moral injury to the people of Hawaii
both a legal and natural right, violated by the
Leaf blowers are unnecessary.
evidence. the Smithsonian deems unnecessary and an offence to the enjoyment of a public space
speak to the duty to the land Hawaiian principles, the voice of Hawaiian
The argument: The legal and poorly regulated operation of gas leaf blowers grossly harms biodiversity; contradicts climate emergency mitigation; and violates the moral imperative prescribed in the Hawaii state constitution, specifically with regard to ‘control of pollution’, which affirms the right of all of us, and in particular our children, to a clean healthful environment. This is both a natural and legal right.
Standing in the way of proper regulation are (1improper definitions of noise
Facts to consider:
definition of noise is a stumbling block to proper regulation
decibels are only one component of the noise hazard and compounding harms
(not just bystander)
There is a constitutional, legal, moral imperative with specific regard to ‘pollution control’ (children are disportpionately harmed)
Black carbon (super-pollution) from gas leaf blowers is not regulated by the EPA with relation to heat transfer (direct , short term climate impacts), thus there is no supremacy clause —elemental carbon, which is among the PM 2.5s regulated by the EPA), is not the same as black carbon in terms of measurement and as such, EPA regulation
can make stricter rules such as no leaf blowers can emit black carbon, as part of global effort to reduce at target level
Black carbon undermines the state’s zero emissions mandate—banning black carbon producing leaf blowers falls in line with mandate to electrify, SIPS
Electric leaf blowers must nonetheless be regulated properly, not just decibels, but time of use, and fines
If leaf blowers harm to extent that objective evidence shows, then the crime should be defined as an injury not a discomfort
people have a moral responsibility to transition, they have a moral responsibility to each other as well as to the land (enshrined in constitution) it is a reciprocal right
characterized as an annoyance, per noise control, if you have a problem with leaf blowers speak to the neighbor and if you get no joy, ‘call us’ a dead end. per the police, even out of hours it is noise control jurisdiction.
(1) Noise is a public health hazard not a subjective experience.
Current definitions and control of noise do not support a clean, healthful environment, nor protect future generations.
(a) Environmental noise is a public health hazard as evidenced and declared by the EPA 50 years ago and by the quiet clean communities 1978. Gas leaf blower noise is particularly relevant here given the extremes emitted in both decibels and low frequency noise (LFN). The adverse physiological and psychological affects of noise, specifically stress and annoyance, are both a producer of mental illness (e.g. anxiety, depression, PTSD, suicidal ideation), and a precursor to clinical disease (list them and cite). Environmental noise, specifically from leaf blowers, is not just a temporary nuisance, subject to opinion; it has insidious long terms effects on human functioning.
(b) Noise is unwanted and/or harmful sound.
This is the new, comprehensive definition of noise put forward by Fink and adopted by the International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN) in 2023. The definition makes precise that noise is not simply ‘unwanted sound’ (a subjective response) as the standard definition has it, rather it is unwanted sound that is ‘able to cause adverse auditory and non-auditory health effects’ (Fink). Wanted sound can also harm.
Standard, subjectively informed definitions—such as the Oahu edition of the state’s ‘Noise Reference Manual’, which defines noise as ‘unwanted sound’—ignore the actual health impacts of noise on all of us (while at the same time acknowledging them). A subjective definition negates scientific research, impairs government policy, and impedes enforcement.
(c) Under the Hawaii State Administrative Rules for ‘Community Noise Control’ is the general definition of noise, and noise pollution:
(i) '"Noise" means any sound that may produce adverse physiological or psychological effects or interfere with individual or group activities, including but not limited to communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep’ (Title 11-46-1).
Thus: noise is a sound that ‘may’ (or may not) cause stress and annoyance in individuals, or is a (subjective) nuisance (which is to be subjectively determined by an enforcement officer) (Noise Ref Manual).
(ii) "Noise pollution" means noise emitted from any excessive noise source in excess of the maximum permissible sound levels’(11-46-4).
The maximum permissible daytime sound levels from 7am to 10pm for residential and multi family dwellings or businesses respectively are 55 and 60 dbA. What the sound levels specifically pertain to is up to the director. Gas leaf blowers can operate in excess of 100 decibels, it is not clear why the director permits this if the violation and harm caused is unjustified (is public harm ever justified?), other than the mistaken, hands-off assumption that leaf blower noise is subjectively determined. h (maybe put low frequency here)
‘Adverse effects from sources of sound with low frequency components may occur at levels below 30 dB(A) [4]. Banks characteristics
(d) Under the Hawaii Revised Statutes ‘Noise Pollution’ means the same as ‘Excessive noise’ (§342F-1):
"Excessive noise" means the presence of sound as measured by standard testing devices . . . of a volume or in quantities and for durations which endangers human health, welfare or safety, animal life, or property or which unreasonably interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property’.
me It is also the case that case that ‘noise’ is by definition ‘harmful sound’. Harm is harm whether it is one degree or a thousand.
Thus: excessive noise is sound that—only when objectively proven with an instrument that measures decibels— does endanger human health and (ought to) constitute a nuisance in the legal sense of the word.
‘Excessive noise’, as defined by §342F-1 is: non subjective sound which exceeds the published daytime limits (or as the director permits) of 55 dbA. Limits thus define the threshold for sound to be considered ‘noise’ (i.e. harmful sound, as opposed to just ‘sound’). Noise, then, is by definition harmful sound, it’s a qualification on sound, and, in the case of leaf blowers, is produced by excessive decibels.
Gas leaf blowers can operate in excess of 100 decibels. This puts them in the company of jackhammers etc.
But where construction companies are required a permit for their noise, and are limited to 78 dba for seemingly small-scale work, jackhammers and such must operate under stricter conditions, that is under the auspices of building and planning, not noise control. Gas blowers operating at 100+ dbA are in the decibel range of jackhammers. The point here is that general construction, which requires a permit and a limit on decibels of 78 dba, has an expiration date, it will last until the job is complete. Gas leaf blowers, which do not require a permit, and operate in excess 100 dba , are allowed to operate, non stop, 7 days a week, including holidays. There is no limit on decibels.
Excessive noise then, is harmful sound—not excessive decibels, as such. Here, is where prior bills have failed to address the actual problem. Sometimes excessive noise (harmful sound) is necessary (e.g. construction, agriculture), and would presumably require a permit to make sound that harms the public (noise). It would not make sense to institute a permit requirement for unnecessary noise (such as the unnecessary noise of green spaces being shaved and denatured). It is not clear why the director, who has the right to put limits on leaf blowers, permits (without a permit) this unnecessary public harm. What matters is the harm not the decibels as such. This is where policy seems to contradict duty. Public health is a service we pay for. Why are we paying to live under constant, unnecessary, and harmful noise without recourse.
There are no limits at all on leaf blower decibels, so measuring decibels in the face of an ‘excessive noise’ complaint would be futile anyway. The only limit is when and where they can operate. Volume, quantity, and duration is irrelevant. The ‘excessive’ noise of a leaf blower is legal 7 days a week, all day, non stop, including holidays, anywhere. This is likely why the public doesn’t complain. To make matters worse, leaf blowers are not stationary. By the time enforcement would arrive, because a leaf blower is operating outside of permissible hours (not because it is harming people with noise); it’s too late, the offender is gone. (this is why we need a reporting system dedicated to GLBs).
The ‘source’ of the excessive noise matters, and it seems to be the case that gas leaf blowers are prima facie exempted from noise control because there is no determination made for the lawn care services industry. Further hampering regulation; leaf blowers are not stationary (§342F-1). They are small off-road engines (SORE). So they are like cars and trucks (internal combustion engines) only they move about in the community, on sidewalks and lawns and public spaces, museums, parks, at the grocery store, on school grounds, outside day care centers, libraries and businesses, rather than on public roads. Although they also emit unburned fuel (internal combustion), they are unlike cars and trucks because they lack computerized catalytic converters and closed-loop fuel systems designed to mitigate the pollution. This might explain the oft-used comparison that a leaf blower is worse than a truck, which OPEI fails to dispel. If the EPA were to properly regulate small engines, gas leaf blowers would not exist. They are a contradiction to clean air.
Going back to noise, which can legally be regulated by the state; gas leaf blowers produce constant, excessive, unnecessary noise in conjunction with legal road noise, but also on top of other unnecessary noise, e.g. dirt bikes, ATV’s, car stereos, and unabated barking dogs. LETS PUT LEAF BLOWER NOISE IN THE CONTEXT OF ALL UNACCEPTABLE harms from NOISE .
ATV’s shoreline
what further degrades hearing is the misuse of earplugs
Degradation of land once a week= duration problem
tinderbox
we are told to enjoy nature to relieve lifestyle stresses, but you cant go outside because of the noise, and you stay inside because of the fumes
(d) inadequate, seemingly confused definitions of noise and their sources, have enabled unacceptable, unregulated noise, which forecloses enforcement and undermines the meaning of community (kaiāulu) by placing the burden of proof on the ‘complainer’. Noise from gasoline leaf blowers is not a subjective nuisance, it is an unwanted mental and physical injury and involves involuntary response, as such, this noise is a chronic, criminal trespass on collective individual (public) health whether a person cares or not.
Noise must be recognised by the department of health as the public health hazard it is. Noise is not merely a ‘public health issue’ (a problem up for debate). There is no debate regarding the harm caused by gas leaf blower noise. The science is settled. Noise is a fundamental source of danger, harm, and loss to health—a hazard. The definitions around noise must be changed to reflect this awareness, in order to properly, and without delay, legislate a ban on the sale and use of harmful gasoline leaf blowers, and by the same token, mitigate unnecessary noise in our communities in keeping with publicly declared sustainability goals (?). This is the duty of the state health department as it pertains to our constitutional (environmental) right, and particularly the right of future generations (Article X1, section 9).
Excessive decibels is not the only noise hazard with gasoline leaf blower.
Why have attempts to ban the sale and/or use of gas leaf blowers not progressed?
chronic exposure to air toxins
Chronic noise exposure
chronic health impacts from climate change
If they aren’t used and operated they do not harm
Hawaii’s small retail businesses will suffer.
Government entities will not be able to complete their work efficiently, and do not have the funds to transition to electric.
According to the health department, no one really complains anyway.
The ANSI certification only applies to gas leaf blowers.
HB 470 SD2 (2025)
While the adverse effects of gas leaf blower emissions on public health is generally acknowledged, historically, testimony in opposition to a ban on sale has primarily come from retail merchants who foresee economic loss with transition to electric.
With regard to amendments, the health department argues that ANSI B175.2-2012 (on which a ban on sale rides) is outdated. EXPLAIN ANSI and the 65 dba Like the 2012 edition, the current fourth edition, ANSI/OPEI B175.2-2012 (R2019), only applies to gas leaf blowers. Thus attempts to apply the standard to electric leaf blowers, with regard to decibels, is redundant , also, if implemented, the certification would inadvertently allow the continued use of the other gas powered lawn equipment that the bill proposes to regulate (string trimmers/weed wackers) because string trimmers are not leaf blowers.
Further, it is argued that the bill would, again, disproportionately affect local retailers’ sales because some people will simply go online and purchase non-complaint equipment. or equipment ?? this one doesn’t make sense
The other issue with noise safety standards (including decibel restrictions) is enforcement. Who will check the labels (if any) or decibel levels on seemingly offensive machinery? Enforcement is not economically viable from the standpoint of state and local budget.
The health department argues that complaints are negligible, presumably because gas leaf blowers are legal, nonstop, 7 days a week, including holidays, and their decibel output unregulated.
The conclusion, then, is that a ban on the sale and or/use of gasoline powered leaf blowers is unjust with regard to perceived economic loss to small businesses; not economically viable with regard to enforcement and the transition to electric of government fleets (who would not be exempted from a ban); and ineffective with regard to non-gasoline leaf blowers and gasoline powered string trimmers.
A crucial stumbling block came from the state’s Attorney General, who cautioned that the EPA, not local governments, has the power to regulate small off road engines (including gas leaf blowers) with regard to pollution.
can regulate noise pollution but air pollution because EPA standards supersede.
Drafting a New Bill for 2027
It shall be unlawful for any person to use a gasoline powered leaf blower or string trimmer/weed whacker for any purpose, or operate a gasoline powered leaf blower or string trimmer at any time [anywhere].
The argument:
What is the justification for a ban on the use and operation of gas leaf blowers?
The health and well-being of the public, the environment, and the climate.
Profoundly harmful noise, air, and climate pollution can effectively, and meaningfully be reduced.
Hawaii has legal grounds to regulate the use and operation of in service non road equipment (including gas leaf blowers). It is the use and operation of gasoline powered leaf blowers that harms the health and well being of Hawaiai’s residents. When they are not being used or operated, they are not harming, that is, directly polluting the air and climate with noise and toxic emissions. The use and operation of gas leaf blowers violates the right to clean, healthful environment.
A full ban would preempt landscape companies, etc. from purchasing new gas powered equipment because using or operating it would be prohibited. So regulating the sale would be unnecessary.
How? How does their use and operation harm?
(4) A moral injustice: gas leaf blower emissions disproportionately harm children
Children’s growth evidence
There should be no leaf blowers of any kind (gas or electric), on the grounds or in the vicinity [to be defined] of a school, or any facility in which children are trying to learn (and teacher’s and care providers trying to teach or nurture) or whom are receiving day care, or after school care
That children and babies are subjected to the constant, excessive, unnecessary use and operation of gasoline powered leaf blowers is a moral injustice
' moral injustice’ deeply unfair, harmful, or unequal treatment that violates fundamental rights or basic human dignity.’ AI
its not just about how many negative environmental impacts count against gas leaf blowers in favor of a ban, rather there is an overriding moral imperative.
it is plainly wrong to allow chronic leaf blower pollution to harm children when the health impacts are well-evidenced by science, when nurses call for a ban (cite), when doctors .
—it about morality, moral initiative, moral justice. , a moral and ethical gas leaf blowers are bad, and theand their use is wrong
unethical—use on school grounds
(i) Time of use
With this in mind time of use for electric leaf blowers, should be meaningfully restricted. Children should not have to get ready for school, or do their homework in concert with leaf blower noise (unless the decibels are ≥55 dbA). .
(ii) No leaf blowers on any school grounds public or private
(iii) No leaf blowers within a mile radius of Day care centres, after school facilities, (unless the decibels are ≥55 dbA). .
(4) A social injustice: gas leaf blower emissions disproportionately harm workers
LFN is felt
Vibroacoustic disease a promising and long overdue area of research?
There is currently no research, that I could find, on the affects of exposure to LFN from gas leaf blowers with regard to vibroacoustic disease. As a source of environmental LFN (low frequency noise), attention needs to be paid to the risk of vibroacoustic disease, not just for leaf blower operators, who especially children (my own opinion)
‘Vibroacoustic disease (VAD) is a systemic, whole-body pathology caused by long-term, excessive exposure to low-frequency noise (LFN) and infrasound (frequencies below 500 Hz).
(2) Noise construed as a decibel problem alone is not sufficient to warrant a ban on the sale and use of gasoline leaf blowers
The argument here is to simply place decibel restrictions on gas leaf blowers or force local retailers to change their inventory?
Low frequency noise from gas leaf blowers harms a broad swath of public, not just the operator and bystander.
Noise exposure guidelines are unreliable https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10194210/.
(a) Low frequency noise (LFN)
Decibels are not the only harm to public health with regard to gas leaf blower noise.
The current ANSI standard for gas leaf blowers, ANSI/OPEI B175.2-2012 (R2019), uses A-weighted metrics (sound levels in decibels) which is inadequate for capturing the widespread harms caused by the distinctive low frequency C-weighted sound and vibration emitting at high levels over long distances from gas leaf blowers.
This is low attenuating sound that travels over an 800 ft radius in a single event and easily infiltrates glass doors, windows and, in particular, the sub-standard, single-wall construction so common in Hawaii. People are not protected inside their home, workplace, or school.
Thus gas leaf blower emissions are both heard (decibels) and felt (LFN). While perception of noise may well be subjective for people who are not deaf or hard of hearing; low frequency vibrations are objective, their affects involuntary, they happen to us regardless of perception, and as such, the ‘noise pollution’ is not a debatable nuisance, it doesn’t just pollute our listening environment, and violate our right to enjoy our property; it pollutes our bodies. So ‘pollution’ is, as it pertains to the affects of gas leaf blowers on human health: toxic battery. (cite) not a tort but a criminal offence.
How can LFN be regulated? By requiring the public to wear headphones? ()Incidental damage to ears and facial bones from ear plugs and headphones which are not effective that we have to pay for ourselves Is the state going to pay for them? This is environemtnal, not occupational, noise.These are not even effective.
the damage is still happening to our bodies and minds from the LFN, which is felt as much as heard
If there is no way to adequately regulate the unnecessary LFN coming out of these gas powered machines, then there is no justification for allowing these machines to operate in the community. An electric/battery leaf blower is just a leaf blower negligible LFN. Thus, a transition to electric is necessary.
Vibroacoustic disease a promising and long overdue area of research?
There is currently no research on the affects of exposure to LFN from gas leaf blowers with regard to vibroacoustic disease. As a source of environmental LFN (low frequency noise), attention needs to be paid to research the risk of vibroacoustic disease, not just for leaf blower operators, who especially children (my own opinion)
‘Vibroacoustic disease (VAD) is a systemic, whole-body pathology caused by long-term, excessive exposure to low-frequency noise (LFN) and infrasound (frequencies below 500 Hz).
Low frequency noise (LFN)’
Intermittent noise harms
is particularly distressing
As long as legislation by way of the Health department fails to get beyond the misconception vital scientific advancement — the bill that gives more power to the health department
The health department should be working with current science, directing its policies toin line with well-documented and widespread scientific consensus on the harms of gas leaf blowers
‘The inadequacy of currently established legislation regarding noise assessments is a powerful
hindrance to scientific advancement. VAD can never be fully recognized as an occupational
and environmental pathology unless the agent of disease - LFN - is acknowledged and properly
evaluated.
Decibels are only half the problem with gas leaf blower noise.
Realistically, the sale and use of ALL leaf blowers (gas and electric) should be banned because leaf blowers produce unnecessary, unwantedand harmful noise.
(3) Air pollution harms more than just lungs and airways
health affects on people
Gas leaf blowers significantly contribute to air pollution (cite)
Hawaiis air pollution expected to increase climate pollution (no longer in attainment)
A ban on the use and operation of gas leaf blowers is not an emission standard in and of itself
‘Harmful effects occur on a continuum of dosage and even at levels below air quality standards previously considered to be safe’. https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(18)32723-5/pdf
(4) [r]educing black carbon is one of the fastest, most effective ways to slow climate change’
as an island state, Hawaii remains particularly
vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and its residents to the health impacts of climate change
thereby endangering
the health, safety, and welfare of the people, warranting
preemptive and protective action’
maybe one reason it must be made distinct from particulate matter is that it cannot always be seen?
Some facts about American beliefs and attitudes towards climate change
Americans who think global warming is happening outnumber those who think it is not happening
by a ratio of more than 5 to 1 (73% versus 14%).
60% of Americans understand that global warming is mostly human-caused’
64% of Americans say they are at least “somewhat worried” about global warming. This includes
28% who say they are “very worried.”
Beliefs about the health harms ‘Many Americans have thought (32%) or worried (28%) a “great deal” or “moderate amount” about
the health harms of global warming, similar to the percentages in 2014.
Many Americans think global warming will harm them, but more think others will be harmed.
89% ‘The overwhelming majority of the world’s people — between 80 and 89%, according to recent science — want governments to take stronger action. But that fact is not reflected in our news coverage, which helps explain why the 89% don’t know that they are the global majority’
and here we are: our government is telling that they want to do something
and they can do this one thing, now
its unclear ion funds have been allocated to short term pollution mitigation, if not, then this is a gross oversight of the climate emergency initiative
let hawaii be the first state to enact a leaf blower ban for the sake of the climate, as well as the people
let Hawaii’s leaf blower ordinance be the model ordinance, ban any leaf blowers on school grounds, etc
stop blaming funding, mobility,
what are the facilitators of the use and operation claiming?
non efficiency
funds
excess inventory
https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/hawaii-describes-climate-changes/ a hawaii poll
Focus on traditional practices of caring for the land, this is what children in the stewardship programme should be learning and doing
I’IMPACTS OF CLIMATE
CHANGE ON
HUMAN HEALTH
IN HAWAII’
https://climatehealthhawaii.org
89% project
‘air quality is expected to worsen as the number of
trade wind days in Hawaii decreases and pollen and mold
increase’ (HCR 192)
‘Hawaii became the first state to declare a climate
emergency by adopting S.C.R. No. 44 in 2021, declaring a climate
emergency and requesting statewide collaboration toward an
immediate transition and emergency mobilization effort to
restore a safe climate’ (HR 197)
Declaration bill
‘DECLARING A CLIMATE EMERGENCY AND REQUESTING STATEWIDE COLLABORATION TOWARD AN IMMEDIATE JUST TRANSITION’ (SCR 44 2021)
The initiative does not space for short term pollutant mitigation—what we can do now
what is a just transition? who requires justice? Hawaii’s retailers? Landscape company owners. Bills have been around since 2010. It seems that long enough time has passed to transition. Not to say they have not. electric is 60% of the market, even OPEI attests to rate of growth and economic opportunity.
Black carbon here
gas leaf blowers insignificant? but its a contradiction to declare that we are in a climate emergency, that air pollution is worsening, and to not remove a serious climate polluter that can be targeted immediately, no matter what percent of global or regional black carbon they produce. Relieving us of gas leaf blowers will also rid the other pollutants that use and operation discharges into the air at 200 mph for hours at a time across the state
something can be done now.
A just transition
what is meant by a ‘just’ transition? To whom does justice bel=ong? what kind of injustice is really at stake?
moral injustice
Who is in need of justice? How can we not see that is our children, workers, the future, all of us, not the Retailers of Hawaii, not OPEI, not landscape companies profiting off of a weak ordinance that proliferates illness, disease, and discontent, not those who believe that the right to do what they want on their own property is a one-sided right, not the eco-ignorant (the false belief that a yard must be groomed use that de greening stuff here), , not them, but of of all of us, INCLUDING THEM, because the air belongs to everyone, it is everywhere at all times, no one should have the right to commandeer that air and the enshittification of the environment it for the sake of groomed yard, or ‘efficiency’ the pollution affects all of us—we have a reciprocal duty to each other and to the land that sustains us, and the public health department has a constitutional duty to honor every resident’s right to a clean healthful, environment.
social injustice
unjust fines
unjust time of use
is an immediate transition given the ongoing impacts on health. How many more years do people have to wait for relief? This is an injustice. does the land have rights? the climate?
who are the stakeholders?
i) The public’s health and wellbeing, the health impacts affect all of us, not just a subset of society, this considers the workers, the children, all of us whether we care or not
ii)The climate and the land that sustains us An immediate transition is is possible with targeted sources of climate pollution at ground level—reciprocal duty
A contradiction to the climate emergency
(3) Should we ban electric leaf blowers as well?
The case for 55 dbA
(1) The ANSI problem
A ban on gas leaf blowers requires meaningful regulation of electric ones.
The appeal to excessive decibels, which must be understood as direct, unwanted ‘auditory and non auditory harm’ (cite) is surely enough to warrant action on a ban on the sale and use of gasoline powered leaf blowers; there are quieter, more efficient alternatives such as electric/battery leaf blowers (cite). However, while gas leaf blowers can exceed 100 dbA at 50 feet from the source, these quieter alternatives can nonethless reach levels of 90 dbA; they are not necessarily safer. Electric/battery operated leaf blowers must also be regulated with regard to excessive decibels (at the bystander level) if they are to be the prescribed alternative to gas.
One reason that at least one of the last three bills failed was a rejected appeal to the ANSI standard for leaf blowers. The health department argues that ANSI B175.2-2012 (on which a ban on sale was riding) is outdated. More importantly, the standard, including the current fourth edition ANSI/OPEI B175.2-2012 (R2019), only applies to gas leaf blowers, not electric/battery ones (and not gasoline powered string trimmers, either). Thus, attempts to apply the standard inadvertently allow the continued use of the other gas powered lawn equipment that the bills proposed to regulate (string trimmers), and leaves electric/battery operated leaf blowers exempt from any proposed limits on decibels.
(ii) The ANSI standard is justified, but 65 dbA is still too much (unless time-of-use is significantly reduced?)
The purpose of ANSI/OPEI B175.2-2012 (R2019) is (1) ‘to establish manufacturer requirements to reduce the risk of injury associated with the use of gas leaf blowers (internal combustion). However, (2) ’This standard may also be used to measure bystander sound pressure levels at 15 meters (50 feet)’ (cite).
So while it’s true that ANSI/OPEI B175.2-2012 (R2019) concerns gasoline powered leaf blowers only as it pertains to the safety of the operator; it is also widely used as a standard methodology by leaf blower manufacturers for measuring the bystander sound pressure levels in dbA of electric/battery operated leaf blowers at 50 ft. Decibels are decibels. Thus, we find electric or battery leaf blowers on the market with ANSI standard decibel ratings, and ordinances around the nation requiring the standard at Category 1 (≤ 65 dBA at 50 feet) for electric/battery leaf blowers.
Nonetheless, 65 dbA exceeds the daytime residential standards of 55 dbA by ten decibels. 55 dbA is set as the threshold at which deleterious effects of noise exposure, are triggered.
Notably, the ANSI methodology is also used to test sound levels at 55 dbA. It is just the sticker cuts of at 65
(iii) Not just noise Electric leaf blowers: Air Pollution PM2s
decibels alone are not enough, But even in the face of a ban, electric leaf blowers produce air pollution, and fugitive dust in quantities and for durations
Electric leaf blowers still produce signifacant amounts of PM2s, restriction on property line ordinance is not enough, time of use must also be amended to (duration, quantity)
so a 15 minute cap on use is necessary (cite how long exposure to pms 2 takes
(3) Gas leaf blower emissions violate §342B-11 Prohibition.is an air pollutant
show that it is supposed to be
(5) Gas leaf blowers are legally sanctioned environmental polluters UNETHICAL treatment of the land and animals , abuse
§342B-11 Prohibition. No person, including any public body, shall engage in any activity [such as operating a leaf blower] which causes air pollution or causes or allows the emission of any regulated air pollutant without first securing approval in writing from the director. [L 1992, c 240, pt of §1]
this would conflict though, because they only have to get permission, when they have been banned
(i) Air pollution
‘"Air pollution" means the presence in the outdoor air of substances in quantities and for durations which may endanger human health or welfare, plant or animal life, or property or which may unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property throughout the State and in such areas of the State as are affected thereby, but excludes all aspects of employer- employee relationships as to health and safety hazards’
Fetal harm and damage to children’s developing organ systems from air pollution is widely documented (cite)
what are the quantities and durations?
the case for time of use (how long does it take for exposure to PM2s to cause harm?
cause air pollution such as fugitive dust and debris
release regulated pollutants
(ii) Written approval is equivalent to getting a licence because it involves permission
This existing prohibition serves as the ground for a licence, since electric leaf blowers also ‘cause air pollution’ with fugitive dust and debris (fugitive dust does not include from combustion)
similarly, the PM2s harm
the definition for ‘air pollution’ should therefore be amended to state that ‘air pollution’ is unwanted toxins [in the the outdoor air] that harm
not just outdoor air, because they do in fact enter peoples homes at 200 mph
(6) Gas leaf blowers are legally sanctioned short-term climate polluters
international calls for ‘near‑term climate planning’ calls for reduction of black carbon
() If we want to make meaningful change,the decibel limit for ers electric leaf blo must be in line with published deceibel levels 55 dba
this does away with the ANSI standard, which may also be susceptible to change,
requires registration
() money spent on earplugs and headphones because some of us want manicured lawns
shall I send a bill to my neighbor
()Incidental damage to ears and facial bones from ear plugs and headphones which are not effective that we have to pay for ourselves
no regulation
Crafting a model ordinance for 2028
Proposed Amendments
(i) Proposed amendment 1: leaf blower registration
The ANSI Category 1 standard (≤ 65 dBA at 50 feet) is a necessary and appropriate objective measure for the regulation of electric/battery powered leaf blowers, which do not produce the more pervasive low frequency vibrations of gas leaf blowers, but can nonetheless exceed 65 decibels, which is the the current industry standard level of comfort and safety. but bad, (check)
Problematically, the problem of checking stickers as proof of decibel output
65 dbA is 15 decibels over the established Hawaii state limits on decibel levels for residences and 10 decibels over multi-faimliy and business, it seems that a multi family would already be producing extra decibels, this is no reason to increase the allowance? hmmm
presumably, anything over 55 dbA, without a permit, is in violation of the statute. is an outdated number.
However, as evidence of the harms becomes the status quo, machinery now is closer to 55dbA which is the WHO level as well as the hawaii limits. So the decibel limit should 55 dbA. To go higher would be a contradiction, standards are likely change which would create further, unnecessary ordinance amendments. prepempting that the decibel limit should be 55 dbA.
the ANSI category one is the sticker proof. not all 65 decibel machines carry a sticker. although machinery is tested, using the ANSI procedure, paying for the certification is optional. There is no sticker for less. in line with a new ANSI bill ?
Licensing/registration, like the limited ANSI standard, can also be a necessary and objective measure for the regulation of electric/battery powered leaf blowers, which do not produce the more pervasive low frequency vibrations of gas leaf blowers, but can nonetheless exceed 65 decibels, which is the the current industry standard level of comfort and safety. (check) Licencing is used by other ordinances
/
In lieu of the sticker problem, all leaf blowers must be registered with the state health department.
Public Awareness
There have been gas leaf blower bans circulating legislation since at least 2010. 15 years is long enough to get the picture.
Following a ban on the sale and use of GLBs, a grace period of 90 days, in terms of enforcement and following a ban, which allows transition to electric should be established in conjunction with an inter-agency and utilities public awareness campaign of the harms of gasoline powered leaf blowers, as well as the opportunity to both retailers and government agencies and their subsidiaries access to trade-in, green incentive rebates and direct grants.
Enforcement: one way to manage compliance is to require simple registration of leaf blowers. This method of compliance, used by other cities with bans around the nation, would apply to commercial landscapers who are already required to have a licence. Information would be uploaded to a publicly accessed database for the purpose of reporting violations.
In the field, particularly for those authorized to cite a violator or confiscate a machine, decibel level apps for iPhone or Android are a simple, reliable verifying tool.
Is this ‘overregulation’? Given that the state constitution provides for a clean, healthy environment, and the use of electric leaf blowers at 65 dBA or less, provides for a cleaner, healthier environment, while nonethless (1) continuing to allow people to use leaf blowers; (2) providing business owners the opportunity for economic growth and community integrity; (3) providing manufacturers the opportunity for innovation; and providing all of us the opportunity to honour Hawaiian principles and policy making, then the logical conclusion is no. Given that excessive low frequency sound and excessive decibels harm public health, regardless of whether people care or not, and it is the duty of the health department to protect public health, then the conclusion is no. This is not overregulation. Enforcement is a service we pay for. As it stands there is no regulation.
(2) Unjust time-of-use (chronic exposure) Moral Injury
How many so-called ‘subjective’ complainers are those with pre-existing auditory and non auditory damage to their health caused by excessive poorly unregulated noise over a lifetime?
Fetal harm and damage to children’s developing organ systems from noise is widely documented (cite):
what do we mean by volume, quantities, and duration, , (which is also subject to the subjectivity and immediate experience of any enforcement officer) in terms of gas leaf blower noise?
quantities: many at once, one after the other, day after day
duration: all day, non stop, 7 days a week including holidays
decibels (volume): no regulation at all
Low frequency noise: no regulation at all
The so-called leaf blower ordinance applies to operation not noise output (thus the need for decibels in the electric leaf blower ordinance)
its not enough to say that time of use automatically regulates noise
its not enough to argue that if we simply adjust time of use, gas leaf blowers are allowed
There is no justification for allowing a gas leaf blower, with its publicly declared harms, to operate 7 days a week, non-stop, including holidays. As it stands, the only time a leaf blower operator is in violation is when most of us are in bed asleep. This is not regulation in any meaningful sense of the word. This is why the Health Department finds that complaints are few and far between (cite). The non-stop violence is legal. There is nothing we can do. In any given neighbourhood, on any given day, regardless of any ‘special’ significance, gas leaf blower crews go house to house, or work multiple acres, utilising multiple machines at once.
This doesn’t mean, however, that we simply need to amend time-of-use in lieu of a ban. The well-documented harms to health, environment, and climate is evidence enough.
Our children, lying stationary in their beds, wake up to the noise, and go to bed with it. Our families, seated at a stationary dinner table, eat dinner with it. Our seniors, or those dealing with illness have to sleep through it, and students have to produce have Duration may only be an hour per job (let’s not forget the multiple blowers and accompanying weed whacking at one job); but multiple jobs go on during the course of the day, either in unison or consecutively. Schools and daycare spaces are not off limits.
Amendment: grounded in puʻuhonua
As used by other cities (model ordinances) around the nation:
Monday to Friday 9am to 5 pm (using one machine at a time per ANSI, no longer than 15 minutes violation verified by photo/video report to the health department code enforcement webpage concerning leaf blowers) (cite) this is to actual enforcement versus a police officers subjective view
Saturday 10 am to 4pm (no commercial landscapers, residents only on their own property).
No Sundays.
No federal, state, or local holidays.
(3) Unjust fines
There is no justification for fining a violater $50 or $100 when, in the same breath, justification for a ban states that high decibels cause hearing loss and psychological distress andb unburned fueoth l harms the environment and exacerbates the climate crisis. Hawaii is particularly vulnerable to the climate crisis. Operating, or paying someone to operate, a gasoline powered leaf blower is clearly an act of violence and trespass on people’s homes and places of business, etc., when we stock of the huge body of evidence against them. Operating a gas leaf blower, or paying someone to, is essentially an environmental crime with regard to biodiversity; and a massive contradiction to the state’s publicly declared climate emergency (cite) since gas leaf blowers contribute immediately and directly to ozone warming in the short term, or NOW.
With this in mind, (on top of a fine) a more effective punishment for violation would be substantial, environmentally conscious community service. (find a city). Perhaps a violator needs to give a presentation to our schoolchildren about the climate in keeping with bill (see bill).
Further, with relation to the deleterious effects on the public’s well-being, injuctive relief should be allowed in the case of persistent abusers. People should not have to make complaints over and over, or wait weeks or months for a response or action. The law is the law whether we live in the ‘country’ or downtown Honolulu. Enforcement is a service we pay for now.
If there are no reliable standards by which we can regulate gas leaf blower ‘noise’ and its harms to whole communities, then the cause of the noise must be banned.
Banning under the noise ordinance may not be enough
‘Generally, exposure to continuous noise is measured using the frequency dependent A-weighted decibel scale (dB[A]). However, using the C-weighted scale (dB[C]) or unweighted (sound pressure level) scale may be appropriate for noise sources with a large proportion of low-frequency components, very intense levels, and/or high intensity impulse noise’ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10194210/
(1) All three bills appeal to ‘quieter alternatives’, namely, electric. Clearly, the violent noise levels of a gas leaf blower have no bearing on air, water, and climate pollution. The appeal (as SB 365 states) should be to both quieter and cleaner alternatives. (Problematically, electric leaf blowers also pollute the air inside and outside with PM2’s, and thus harm public health, even if they are quieter).
Another cockeyed view fails to notice that the revised ANSI/OPEI B175.2-2012 (R2019) is a standard established to reduce the risk of injury to the operator (p. 8/70). What about the rest of us?
What this ANSI rating proves is that the machine has been tested to measure its bystander sound pressure levels at 50 feet.
‘the ANSI dBA standard at 50 feet does not adequately evaluate community impact or allow comparisons of gas-and battery-powered equipment sound. . . it underweights the contribution of low frequency sound, it does not provide information sufficient to evaluate how sound energy transmits over distance or on its related health risks’. (see https://sciforschenonline.org/journals/environmental-toxicological-studies/article-data/JETS-2-118/JETS-2-118.pdf).
‘the machine has undergone standardized testing to measure its bystander sound level at a distance of 50 feet.’ (in keeping with WHO) new ansi
65 decibels for the operator, thus the prevention of hearing injury
clearly ANSI rating has no bearing on community perception. Similarly, decibels do not always read out the same as the label in locus (cite)
Manufacturers are moving away from both ANSI and decibel ratings in favor of standards that measure air thrust (Newtons), perception-based quietness, and aerospace-derived sound technologies (shifting noise to near-ultrasonic frequencies) (CITE)
short of forcing new leaf blower operators to purchase form a small pool of manufacturers, ANSI and the decibel rating would be only means to
(2) The appeal to noise (quieter alternatives) is an oversimplification. While noise is subjective (in the mind); sound, which is felt (in the body), is not. (cite) Crucially, reducing decibels (dBA) does not reduce the ‘more severe and adverse health effects’ caused by the high levels of low frequency vibration coming out of gas leaf blowers (broadly dBC). Sound which is felt in addition to the debilitating noise heard in our collective heads
SB 365 argues that ‘gas-powered leaf blowers can cause hearing damage to users and bystanders with prolonged exposure’. However, low frequency sound can be heard and felt inside homes and buildings with windows and doors shut at 800 feet away. ‘[E]xtreme noise’ doesn’t just disproportionately affect leaf blower operators. Excessive decibels and low frequency sound disproportionately affects the sensory and cognitive development of children and the unborn (cite).
(3) Each of the three bills leaves distance (100ft) unamended. Currently, §342F-30.8 is at least 700 feet off in all directions.
The fact that here is no noise measurement rule regarding at all for any leaf blowers highlights the general necessity of an ordinance. Electric equipment must also be regulated with regard to decibels. But, the preoccupation with gas leaf blower ‘noise’ is a non-starter; it also seems likely that any appeal to air or water quality metrics (SB 365) will similarly fall short.
Noise meausrents concern individual leaf blowers, where the concern is with the equipment in general. Gas leaf blowers are indisputable toxic and harm people and the environment. The only solution is ban on both sale and use based on scientific evidence.
The urgent, wide-ranging and complex effects on health from low frequency sound is underestimated by these current bills.
ANSI Conclusion
If there are no reliable standards by which we can regulate gas leaf blower ‘noise’ and its harms to whole communities (ANSI/decibels serve to protect the operator) , then the cause of the noise must be banned. There are no regulations right now, other than time of use, which is another affront to communities.
Low frequency sound is more harmful than excessive decibels
Banning gasoline operated leaf blowers would eradicate the low frequency noise in communities . Electric leaf blowers do not produce
instead of electrifying fleets, use the money to electrify the two stroke equipment first because the four stroke truck s that transport this equipment are less polluting—its a high impact action
Time-of-use also harms public health.
There are no amendments to time-of-use propsed in the current bills. However, simply amending time of use is not practical on its face. The same arguments from the department of education will arise. Efficiency. Also, The harms caused by low frequency sound are immediate (check) unlike hearing damage which takes two hours
Both HB30 and HB470 HD2 state that gasoline-powered leaf blowers ‘operate at approximately ninety decibels, which can cause hearing damage after two hours of exposure’. SB 365 puts the range between 80-100 dBA. Yet unamended time-of-use (per §342f-30.8, Hawaii Revised Statutes) allows up to 11 hours a day, non stop, 7 days a week, including holidays. While a job may take only an hour, landscapers often do one street of houses on the same day. Let us not forget that even if it is operating one or two streets away (or anywhere in a valley), the low frequency noise of a gasoline powered leaf blower can still be heard and felt over 800 feet away. (cite) Further, while it may take two hours to lose hearing, it takes only five minutes of leaf blower noise to send people into sympathetic stress (fight or flight), especially if they have been subjected to chronic, long term exposure —which many of us have. Let us not forget the delayed health affects. (cite). As HB 30 and HB 470 rightly point out, the harmful stressors associated with noise ‘combine to detract from the quality of life for people and the environment’.* Why then are these unnecessary pieces of off-road equipment allowed to interfere, physically, physiologically, and mentally, with our health on a daily basis at such an excessively harmful rate?
One answer is cost.
The punishment does not fit the crime.
If, as HB 30 states, noise pollution from gas leaf blowers can cause hearing loss, why would a person caught using a banned leaf blower only be subject to a $100 fine? Is that all the community’s hearing and quality of life is worth? The fine is only consistent with the violation of a prohibition. But the prohibition is for the sake of human health. It is supposed to mean something. That is its community (justificatory and ethical) value.
Aside from noise pollution, gas leaf blowers harm the nervous system, disrupt fetal and child development, pollute air and water, reduce biodiversity, and directly warm the ozone in a short period of time. see the resources links
All told, the illegal operation of a gas leaf blower (were they banned) should be charged as both a toxic trespass on persons and an environmental crime. But let’s start with appropriate fines. In Canada, for example, fines top at $3,000 for individuals and $12,000 for business. Even so, we might also demand serious community service in the form of toxic clean-up, since landscaping companies often write off these expenses as part and parcel of conducting a business that harms the community. (cite)
What about four-stroke gasoline powered leaf blowers?
The definition of a gasoline powered leaf blower in each of these bills only extends to two-stroke gasoline engines, not four-stroke. Four stroke engines are equally harmful given the low frequency sound produced.
What about electric leaf blowers?
*It should be pointed out that electric or battery operated leaf blowers, while a vast improvement over gasoline, still blow harmful toxins (PM 2.5s) into the air, e.g., feces, . And, as mentioned, can still emit decibels at dangerous levels. This would seem to be a benefit to the regulation of all leaf blowers suggested in HB 470, however, regulation based on sound measurements are impractical and difficult to enforce (as pointed out in previous testimony cite). The solution is a full ban on use, as well as sale. The solution is also a reduction in the time-of-use of any leaf blower, since the noise of any leaf blower can instantly trigger stressors, given that many of us have lived with these unnecessary machines for years, day in and day out.
Fiscal implications of protecting human health?
The expense of replacing gasoline equipment with electric (in particular, public ground’s maintenance) along with costs related to enforcement of any ban, apparently costs more than the human health the public health department is appointed to protect.
Gasoline powered leaf blowers are super-polluters.
Gas leaf blower emissions do not simply pollute the air we breathe; they create immediate ozone warming and affect the climate faster than standard greenhouse gases, which are long term..
Why is there no ‘gas leaf blower initiative’ in the state initiatives and city plan given the widely acknowledged harms to humans, wildlife, biodiversity, air, water, and climate ?
The continued sale and use of gasoline operated leaf blowers is a contradiction to the State’s publicly declared climate initiatives, that is: ‘High-Impact Actions that will accelerate greenhouse gas emission reductions’.
Incomprehensibly, a ban on the sale and use of gas leaf blowers (which emit more pollution than cars and trucks) is not considered in the city and county of Honolulu’s Climate Action Plan. According to the plan’s executive summary,
‘The City has already committed to fully transforming its own vehicle fleet to electric or renewable technology by 2035, and is supporting the transition to electric vehicles island-wide’.
Where the vehicles used to transport city landscape equipment would be electric; the toxic leaf leaf blowers they use to groom school grounds and public spaces would not. Even if the fleets are not electrified, black carbon producing leaf blowers out-pollute the four stroke vehicles used to carry them.
If '[r]educing black carbon is one of the fastest, most effective ways to slow climate change’ and the goal of the Climate Action Plan is to ‘drastically reduce the emissions that cause climate change’; then it seems obvious that a ban on the sale and use of black carbon producing leaf blowers is both necessary and sufficient. This alone would have the immediate, strong, and far reaching effects the plan aims for, now.
Where the Climate Action Plan lays out a path to reduce long term carbon emissions, there is a shorter path to mitigation. A ban on gas leaf blowers would drastically accelerate Oahu’s clean energy future. There is nothing more directly damaging to communities, environment, climate, and public health than gas operated leaf blowers.
Claims of economic loss, budget restrictions, and machine inefficiency are unwarranted.
Whether a person cares or not, low frequency noise harms all of us.
Immediate ban
there have been multiple leaf blower ban bills since 3013. The public is aware that the nation is moving towards electrification. 89% want their governments to do something.
The ordinance to be amended
§342F-30.8 Leaf blowers; [string trimmers] weed whackers; restrictions. (a) In any urban land use district, as designated pursuant to section 205-2, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate a [two or four stroke gasoline powered] leaf blower or [string trimmer]weed whacker within a residential zone or within one hundred feet of a residential zone in the State, except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday or a state or federal holiday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sunday or any state or federal holiday; provided that government entities, and agents acting on behalf of government entities, may use weed whackers during the prohibited hours in the case of an emergency as defined in section 127A-2.
(b) Violators shall be fined $50 for the first violation, $100 for the second violation, $200 for the third violation, and $500 for each subsequent violation.
(c) Government entities, and agents acting on behalf of government entities, shall not be subject to this section as it applies to leaf blowers.
(d) Any county may adopt a rule or ordinance that places stricter limitations on the use of leaf blowers or weed whackers than are in this section. In case of a conflict between the requirements or limitations of this section and any county rule or ordinance regarding the use of leaf blowers or weed whackers, the more restrictive requirements shall apply.
must include
The Ordinance prohibits the use of gas-powered leaf blowers within the township, prohibits the use of gas or diesel generators to power electric leaf blowers, and reimposes hourly restrictions on the use of electric leaf blowers.
Definition string trimmer weed whacker, weed- eater
4 stroke
definition should also state small off-road engine (non stationary) (SORE) this must also be included in the def of ‘excessive noise source’
definition of residence that includes condos etc from the big
"Leaf blower"means any portable motorized landscape equipment used to blow
leaves dirt and other debris off sidewalks driveway lawns or other surfaces
"Leaf blower.Certified"means a leaf blower with a noise level reading of 65 dBA
or less measured at a distance of 50 feet by an independent laboratory er American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard B175 2, [get latests ANSI] as certified by the
manufacturer,or an electric leaf blower with a noise level measured at 65 dBA or less
at a distance of 50 feet, as certified by the manufacturer (from Cupertino)
add this in from a proposed bill to clarify residential
SECTION 1. Section 342F-30.8, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
"(e) For the purposes of this section:
"Leaf blower" means any machine used to blow leaves, dirt, or other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns, and other surfaces.
"Residential zone" includes residential districts, apartment districts, and business mixed use districts, as those terms may be used in state law or county ordinance.
"State holiday" means any day established as a state holiday in section 8-1.
"Weed whacker" means a gasoline or electric powered yard tool that uses either a flexible monofilament line (also known as a string or line trimmer) or revolving metal cutting blade intended to cut or trim grass and other vegetation."
‘Sound Rating Certification. Leaf blower models shall be used that are category 1 rated by American National Standards Institute ("ANSI") or an outside laboratory (e.g., Underwriters Laboratory) that confirm manufacturers of leaf blower models produce a maximum sound rating of 65 dB(A) measured 50 feet from the noise source (ANSI standard B175.2).
The leaf blower bill applies to string trimmers as well, and it doesnt matter because it is not dependent on ANSI
to include string trimmers etc., it must be stated that other gasoline powered lawn equipment
Language of the bill
50 years ago the EPA declared noise a public health hazard. Lack of funding has forced local governments to classify noise as a ‘nuisance’ with the burden of proof on the ‘complainer’. Hence, enforcement has been difficult
Proposed Amendments
Time of use
As written, it is legal to operate any leaf blower in a residential zone, 5 days a week, 11 hours straight, and 10 hours straight on Sundays and holidays. Essentially amounting to 7 days a week non-stop.
Government entities and their agents are exempted in case of emergency, but limited to the use of ‘weed whackers’.
Understanding the interconnected nature of these risks is necessary to inform policy concerning leaf blowers’
No Exemptions
Commercial leaf blower operators, multi-parcel owners (adjoining parcels of land owned by the same owner and totaling two or more acres), city and county employees, and city and county contractors are not exempted.
Enforcement
An outright ban on the sale and use of gas leaf blowers. This is both necessary and sufficient to stop the chronic noise, debilitating pollution, and constant contamination of the ozone; all completely unnecessary and, as such, a contradiction to Hawaiian principles.
One way to prevent or deter violation is to require a leaf blower permit for the use of any leaf blower, given that electric leaf blowers can exceed 65 decibels and nonetheless pollute our homes and environment with PM2s. Obviously, with a ban, there should be no permit for gas leaf blowers, however, ‘permit’ for any leaf blower, guarantees enforcement
If an operator is in violation (on restricted time, the police can require to see their permit)
Property owners are ultimately responsible for compliance (why)
is it feasible to require a permit for leaf blowers? go here https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=is+it+feasible+to+require+a+permit+for+leaf+blowers&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
people ride the electric bus only to go home and breathe the fumes of gas leaf blowers billowing in their condo unit
A searchable database of permit holders (numbers) would be accessible to the public, just as the licence to operate a business is easily searchable.
Violations could be reported through an online complaint form or use HNL 311 to report an issue
Permits are obviously not a foolproof solution, however, they are a deterrent which is always be the best we can strive for.
Electric leaf blower noise (high decibels) is also a ‘nuisance’ and they nonetheless contaminate the air inside and outside homes, businesses and schools with high-speed PM2s.
(1) Registration and licence
Licence to use: All leaf blower operators (electric) will be required to register their equipment (thus ensuring ANSI and decibel compliance) and obtain a licence from the department of health
Outdated equipment (leaf blower conversion) shall be traded in for a rebate in order to aid transition. Rebates are made available through ‘special funds’ allocated through environmental management initiatives — ‘Gas Leaf Blower Initiative’ using monies collected from licences and appropriated through environmental management initiatives rather than state funds; grants similar to the cesspool conversion and compost reimbursement programs.
Licence to sell? Since place of purchase is required for a licence, retailers (include online ones) will be also accountable for prohibited equipment. local businesses will be required to register their products?? department of commerce
Licence searchable on database where there is also a reporting application
since ANSI does not extend to electric leaf blowers, the decibel rating must be used instead
(2) Public awareness 89%
(3)Community enforcement
(4) Restricted time-of-use (of electric leaf blowers) upheld by local law enforcement