An act to amend Section 147.4 of the Labor Code, relating to employment.
AB 1181 updates California Labor Code Section 147.4 to direct the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to revisit firefighter personal protective equipment standards with a specific focus on reducing exposure to hazardous substances, especially PFAS and flame retardants. The bill builds on the state’s existing process for reviewing National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, but adds a separate requirement that, by January 1, 2028, the board consider modifying the firefighter PPE safety order to address NFPA performance tests that are not relevant to actual firefighting use and that can drive the inclusion of toxic chemicals in gear.
The measure requires the board to use scientific research to develop California-specific PPE standards that are protective of firefighter health and safety, with the 2025 NFPA 1970 standard serving as a floor rather than a ceiling. It also requires future-certified firefighter PPE to be free of hazardous substances that may pose long-term environmental or human health risks, and it directs manufacturers to certify compliance. The bill distinguishes between firefighting personal protective garments and auxiliary PPE, allows a later implementation date for auxiliary equipment, and calls for phasing out existing gear through normal attrition or within 10 years after the new safety order is adopted. In addition, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health must report to the Governor and Legislature by July 1, 2026 on progress toward implementation.
The bill’s impact is to amend state occupational safety law governing firefighter PPE and to give Cal/OSHA and the Standards Board a more explicit mandate to move away from PFAS-containing gear where possible. It does not itself ban specific products immediately, but it requires rulemaking and reporting that could lead to new state safety orders affecting manufacturers, fire departments, and procurement practices for turnout gear, breathing apparatuses, hearing protection, communication devices, and fall-protection products. It also reinforces California’s broader policy trend of restricting PFAS in firefighting-related products, consistent with the state’s earlier phaseout of PFAS-containing AFFF foam.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s legislative history is strongly supportive and largely noncontroversial. Committee and floor votes were unanimous or near-unanimous at each recorded stage, and the bill ultimately became chaptered without recorded opposition in the provided vote history. The framing of the bill emphasizes firefighter cancer risk and the toxicity of PFAS, suggesting broad agreement on the public health rationale.
The main point of contention, to the extent one is implied by the bill text, is the balance between firefighter safety standards and the chemical requirements embedded in NFPA performance testing. The bill specifically targets NFPA tests it describes as overly burdensome or not relevant to actual use, which could raise concerns among manufacturers or standards stakeholders about certification requirements, compliance costs, and the timeline for replacing existing gear. However, no explicit opposition appears in the provided transcripts or votes.
AB 1181 amends Labor Code Section 147.4 to add a new directive for the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to consider revising firefighter PPE safety orders by January 1, 2028. The revision must address NFPA performance standards that contribute to the use of PFAS, fluoropolymers, flame retardants, and other hazardous substances, and it must be based on scientific research. The bill also requires a progress report from the Division of Occupational Safety and Health by July 1, 2026, and sets out implementation and phase-out expectations for both firefighting garments and auxiliary PPE. This changes state occupational safety policy by pushing California toward stricter, health-based PPE standards for firefighters and potentially affecting manufacturers, fire agencies, and regulatory enforcement.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little visible controversy in the legislative record provided. It advanced through committee and floor votes with unanimous or near-unanimous approval, including 78-0 in the Assembly, 79-0 on Senate concurrence, and no recorded dissent in committee votes. The bill’s findings and declarations frame the issue as a firefighter health and cancer-prevention measure, which likely contributed to the favorable reception.
The central policy tension is between maintaining alignment with NFPA standards and rejecting NFPA performance tests that the bill says are not relevant to actual firefighting use but may encourage the use of PFAS and other hazardous chemicals. Potentially affected parties include PPE manufacturers, which would need to certify compliance with new California standards, and fire departments, which would need to transition existing gear over time. The bill also creates a distinction between turnout gear and auxiliary PPE, suggesting implementation timing may be debated because some equipment categories may be harder to replace or certify than others. No direct opposition is shown in the provided materials, but these are the likely areas of concern.