Haw. Code R. § 12-46-318
The determination of whether an assistance animal poses a direct threat and whether the animal's owner or handler has taken effective action to control the animal so that the threat is mitigated or eliminated, must be based on an individualized assessment about the specific animal in question, such as the animal's current conduct or recent history of overt acts. The determination may not be based on the animal's species or breed. Factors to be considered include: the nature, duration and severity of the risk of injury; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; whether reasonable modifications of rules, policies, practices, procedures, or services will reduce the risk; and whether the animal's owner has taken any action that has reduced or eliminated the risk, such as obtaining specific training, medication, or equipment for the animal. Denial of the use of a particular animal does not preclude a request to use a different animal.
Example:
Michael, who lives in an apartment building that has a "no pets" policy, has a disability and requires the use of Spot, an emotional support dog. One day while Michael and Spot are riding in the elevator, Spot lunges and bites a guide dog owned by Cindy, who is blind and is in the elevator at the time. Spot therefore poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others. If the direct threat can be mitigated, for example by having Michael muzzle and hold Spot by a short leash when Spot is in common areas, and by having Michael and Spot refrain from riding in the same elevator and being in the same common areas as Cindy and her guide dog, Michael may continue to use Spot. However, if the direct threat from Spot cannot be mitigated, or if Spot's continued presence would cause an undue financial and administrative burden, the apartment manager may deny Michael's use of Spot, though Michael may then request the use of a different emotional support animal.
Haw. Code R. § 12-46-318