ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2026 Published: What Importers Must Change

ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2026 Is Now Published: The Complete Buyer's Guide for First Aid Kit Importers

On 17 September 2026, ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2026 was published — the first full revision of the American National Standard for Minimum Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits and Supplies since 2021, and the version that will drive US workplace first aid purchasing decisions for the next several years.

If you import or distribute first aid kits into the United States, this matters more than a typical standard update. Most coverage has led with naloxone, and that is a fair headline — but it is not the only change that affects what goes inside your product. There are new provisions on tourniquets, CPR and AED readiness, bilingual instructions, anti-choking devices, and kit management for mobile and field workers. Separately, California has approved its own revision to workplace first aid rules, effective around the same time, which interacts with the federal picture in a way most suppliers have not noticed.

Here is what changed, what it means for the kits you sell, and what to do before the 2027 buying season.

1. What was published, and why a voluntary standard carries teeth

ANSI/ISEA Z308.1 is the American National Standard for Minimum Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits and Supplies. It is developed through the International Safety Equipment Association and approved by ANSI, and it defines Class A and Class B kit contents, container performance requirements, and what a compliant workplace first aid provision looks like.

Compliance with it is voluntary — a word overseas suppliers routinely read too generously. OSHA's own first aid requirement is written in general terms: adequate first aid supplies must be readily available. It publishes no shopping list. When it evaluates whether an employer's provision is adequate, it refers employers to the consensus standard.

That makes Z308.1 a working benchmark rather than a suggestion. The practical consequence for importers: when your US buyer's compliance team updates its specification, it updates it to this standard. Your kit either matches the new configuration or it becomes a rework conversation.

2. Naloxone: from "emerging" to specified

The headline change is that the standard now recommends naloxone — an opioid overdose reversal medication — as part of workplace provision. The published text points to keeping at least two naloxone nasal sprays in a clearly labeled kit kept near other emergency supplies.

Why two: an overdose reversal is not always completed with a single dose, and a workplace kit that runs out after one spray has failed the situation it was bought for.

The National Safety Council, which worked alongside ISEA on the revision, put the scale of the problem directly: 8 percent of workplace deaths are caused by drug overdose. NSC CEO Lorraine Martin framed the employer gap bluntly — only 28 percent of employers currently report having naloxone at worksites.

Read those two numbers together and you have the commercial case for this provision: roughly seven in ten US employers are currently non-compliant with what the revised standard recommends, and the risk that makes it relevant is already showing up in fatality statistics. That is a specification change waiting to be purchased.

For importers, the questions to settle now are practical ones:

**Does the kit container accommodate a nasal spray without crushing it? A rigid, immovable content layout can be a blocker.

**Is there a labeled compartment? The standard's language assumes the naloxone is identifiable and reachable, not buried.

**Does the content list and artwork reflect it? Add the item without updating the printed list and you have created a "missing item" complaint that never had to happen.

**What is your position on supplying it? Naloxone is a regulated medicine in the US, with state-level variation in distribution. That is a question for your buyer's compliance team, not a decision to make unilaterally. Our role is to build the compartment and the labeling.

3. The tourniquet clause most coverage missed

Buried under the naloxone headline is a change that matters to anyone selling bleeding control components.

The published standard clarifies the distinction between arterial tourniquets and ineffective elastic bands, and explicitly flags counterfeit tourniquets as a workplace concern.

This is a direct response to a real market problem. A windlass tourniquet is a device with a mechanical function; a rubber strap marketed as a tourniquet is not the same product, and in a catastrophic bleed the difference is not marginal. Counterfeit devices that look like recognised tourniquets but do not perform are already circulating in workplace and consumer channels.

For a supplier, this cuts two ways. It raises the risk of cheap unspecified "tourniquets" in a kit — a component you may have inherited from a low-cost bill of materials years ago and never questioned. And it creates a legitimate reason for buyers to upgrade, provided you can document what you are shipping: correct device type, component specification, and a supplier traceable to a manufacturer with the right quality system.

If your current US-bound kit lists a tourniquet in its contents, take five minutes now to confirm what device it actually is. That single check prevents an uncomfortable conversation later.

Need your current bleeding-control configuration reviewed against the published standard? Send us your content list and we will come back with a component-level assessment — including which items need sourcing documentation and which can stay as they are.

4. CPR and AED readiness: a new category of language

The 2026 revision adds guidance on CPR and AED preparedness — and this is genuinely new territory for a standard that has historically described what goes in a box.

Three specific phrases matter:

CPR and AED preparedness. The question is no longer whether a device is on the wall, but whether it is findable, current, and connected to a plan — placement, signage, pad and battery status.

Staffing levels for trained responders. This is the change with the sharpest edges for multi-site employers. A single trained responder is a single point of failure who takes holidays and eventually resigns. The standard begins asking how many trained people a site should have — a headcount question with a budget attached.

Product-specific awareness training. Generic CPR certification teaches the sequence; it does not teach the device a responder will actually face.

The commercial translation is straightforward: kits are increasingly sold as part of a preparedness programme, not as a box. Sellers who supply the content documentation, the training-ready labelling and the replenishment schedule become the easier vendor to keep.

5. The smaller changes that will still cost you a rework

Four further provisions in the published standard are easy to skim past and expensive to miss.

Bilingual first aid guides. First aid guides must be provided in both English and Spanish. For an importer selling into US workplaces, this is now a content requirement, not a nice-to-have — and it is a printing and version-control task that has to be planned into production, not fixed afterwards.

Anti-choking devices. The standard adds updated guidance on these as supplemental supplies. If you sell into food service, childcare or education channels, expect this to appear in buyer specifications.

Expanded bleeding control. The revision expands guidance on supplemental kits including chest seals, hemostatic bandages, compression bandages and thermal blankets for higher-risk environments. This is a configuration upsell with a compliance justification attached.

Mobile and field workers. New guidance covers hazard assessment across changing job sites, when to carry a kit from the vehicle to the worksite, and field restocking. That last point matters for consumables: a replenishment programme is now part of the standard's logic.

6. The California overlay nobody has connected yet

While the national standard was being published, California's Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board approved its own revisions to workplace first aid requirements — amending section 1512 (construction) and section 3400 (general industry). Pending review by the Office of Administrative Law, they are expected to take effect on 1 January 2027.

Two aspects deserve attention.

First, the physician-approval requirement is gone. Historically, California's general industry rule required first aid materials to be approved by a consulting physician. In practice, many employers were cited not because their kits were inadequate, but because they could not produce an approval letter. The revised rule replaces that with a simpler alternative: employers may provide a kit complying with ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2021 Class A requirements, or have contents determined by a licensed physician or other licensed health care professional.

Note the version mismatch. California's amended text references the 2021 Class A requirements, while the national standard has just moved to 2026. A kit built to the published 2026 configuration is a superset of the 2021 baseline for Class A purposes — but this is exactly the kind of detail that causes confusion in a buyer's specification meeting, and exactly the kind of question a supplier with a well-documented content list can answer in one email.

Second, the rule is broader than a content list. The amendments also require employers to:

*Evaluate the number of kits needed based on employee locations and workplace hazards

*Ensure kits are readily available

*Communicate kit locations to employees

*Clearly identify kit locations where practicable

*Inspect and replenish supplies as necessary

There is also a hazard assessment requirement: where an assessment identifies hazards that are unique, reasonably anticipated and potentially serious, employers must provide additional specialised first aid items. An ANSI-compliant Class A kit satisfies the baseline but may not be sufficient for every site. Notably, the Board rejected proposals to mandate naloxone or epinephrine in all workplaces, concluding these should be addressed through the hazard assessment process.

The practical read: California employers will soon need more kits, better identified, with a replenishment process, plus documented thinking about site-specific additions — a specification opportunity across an entire state, arriving 1 January 2027.

7. What to do before the 2027 buying season

If you sell first aid kits into the United States, this is a short and specific list.

Audit your current US content lists against the published standard. Not against your memory of the draft — against the published text. Flag every newly addressed item: naloxone compartment, tourniquet specification, bleeding control additions, anti-choking devices, bilingual guide.

Settle the tourniquet question. Identify the actual device in every kit that contains one, and get sourcing documentation for it.

Plan the bilingual guide into production. It is a print run, a version-control item and a proofing cycle. Treat it as a project, not a PDF.

Decide your naloxone position with your buyer, not for your buyer. Build the capability; let them confirm the regulatory route.

Get ahead of California. Employers there will be re-specifying between now and January. Being the supplier who arrives with a documented, standard-mapped configuration — rather than the one who has to be asked twice — is the entire advantage.

8. How Kebon supports US-bound programmes

We manufacture first aid kits and first aid supplies in Yiwu, China, with roughly 100 staff across a 5,000 m² facility. We hold ISO 13485, CE, FDA and UKCA certifications, and we work with importers, distributors and private-label brands selling into the US, Europe, the Middle East and Canada.

For US-bound programmes affected by the 2026 revision, what we can provide is specific:

*Component-level content lists that map to the published standard, line by line, so your compliance team can review a document rather than a sample

*Sourcing documentation for regulated and performance-critical components, including tourniquets and bleeding control items

*Multi-language labelling and printed guide production — we already run packaging across 21 languages, so English/Spanish guides are routine work rather than a new capability

*Rigid and soft case configuration with dedicated, labeled compartments for items like nasal sprays that should not be crushed

*Replenishment and refill pack programmes, which the revised standard's restocking language makes more relevant

*A broad product matrix so one supplier can carry your whole line: workplace medical first aid kits, industrial first aid kits, advanced wound closure kits, tactical and trauma packs and car emergency rescue kits

MOQ is 500 units and standard production lead time is around 30 days. If you need to be ready for the 2027 specification cycle, that lead time is the relevant planning input.

Building a US compliance-mapped kit line? Send us your target configuration and we will return a proposal with the content list mapped to the published standard, documentation status for each regulated component, and a production schedule with real dates.

9. Frequently asked questions

Is compliance with ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2026 mandatory?

The standard itself is voluntary. However, OSHA refers employers to the consensus standard when evaluating whether workplace first aid supplies are adequate, which makes it the working benchmark in practice. Separately, California's revised rules offer compliance with an ANSI Class A kit as an explicit path — so in that state, the standard becomes a regulatory route rather than guidance.

When did it take effect?

It was published on 17 September 2026. There is no formal phase-in period for a consensus standard; buyers typically begin writing it into specifications over the following one to two purchasing cycles.

Does my kit have to include naloxone now?

The standard recommends it. Whether it is appropriate for a given site is a question for the employer and their compliance advisors, and naloxone distribution is regulated at state level in the US. What a manufacturer can do is provide the compartment, the labelling and the content list entry.

What is the counterfeit tourniquet provision about?

The standard explicitly distinguishes arterial tourniquets from ineffective elastic bands and flags counterfeit tourniquets as a workplace concern. In practice it means buyers will increasingly ask what device is in the kit and who made it — so have the answer ready.

We already ship to the US. Do we need to change our packaging?

The bilingual guide requirement and the labeling expectations around new items are the two most likely packaging consequences. Both are print and version-control tasks that should be planned into a production run rather than patched afterwards.

Further reading

*ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2026: What the New US First Aid Kit Standard Means for Importers and Brands — our September preview of the revision

*Importing First Aid Kits from China in 2026: US Tariffs, Exemptions, and What Actually Changed

*Selling First Aid Kits in the UK in 2026: CE, UKCA and What the New MHRA Reforms Mean for Importers

*Workplace medical first aid kits · Industrial first aid kits · Advanced wound closure kits