Cut and Sew Apparel Contractors (U.S.) — Industry Primer

NAICS 2022 code 315210. NAICS is the North American Industry Classification System, the standard the U.S. government uses to define industries.

1. Overview

Cut and sew apparel contractors are the sewing shops that turn a brand's cloth into finished garments. The defining feature is that they do not own the materials or the design — a fashion label, wholesaler, or uniform supplier hands them fabric (and usually the pattern) and pays them a fee to cut and stitch it. They are the domestic equivalent of the overseas garment factory, just working on a job-shop basis.[1][4]

This is a small, shrinking, and extremely fragmented U.S. industry. Only about 2.5% of the apparel bought in America is made in America; the rest is imported — the United States imported $79.3 billion of apparel in 2023, mostly from Asia.[5][18] Federal figures put the domestic contractor business at roughly $2.0 billion in annual receipts and about 22,700 workers[6][2] — a rounding error next to the trillion-dollar global apparel trade, and a fraction of the ~900,000 U.S. apparel manufacturing jobs that existed in 1990.[5] The decline is ongoing: the establishment count fell roughly 28% between 2017 and 2023, from 2,921 to 2,094 employer establishments.[6][19]

Why an investor cares: this is not a place to find a large public stock. There is no pure-play, publicly traded U.S. cut-and-sew contractor of scale. It matters instead as (a) a private-market niche — thousands of owner-operated shops, defense-uniform sewers, and small "Made in USA" factories — and (b) a read on bigger themes: reshoring, tariffs, the fate of fast fashion, and labor law. If you want exposure through public equities you buy it indirectly, through vertically integrated apparel makers and uniform companies (Section 4).

• Public route: indirect only — integrated apparel/uniform firms whose sewing is mostly offshore; no domestic pure play.
• Private route: direct ownership of a contract sewing shop, a Berry-compliant defense sewer, or a "Made in USA" brand-owned factory; private equity in workwear and uniforms.

2. What it is and how it's structured

In scope: establishments that, for a fee, cut fabric owned by others and/or sew garments from materials owned by others — men's, women's, and children's clothing, uniforms, outerwear, leather and fur apparel, and specialty items. They sell a service (labor plus factory overhead), not a product they own.[1][20]

The trade calls this CMT work — "cut, make, trim." The brand supplies the fabric and trims; the contractor supplies the cutting, sewing, and finishing labor and bills per garment.[9]

What it excludes (adjacent NAICS codes an investor should not confuse it with):

• 315250 — Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing (except Contractors): firms that buy their own fabric, design, and market the clothing (including "jobbers" who own the goods). Owning the materials is the dividing line.[2]
• 315120 — Apparel Knitting Mills (knit the fabric and the garment together).[2]
• 315990 — Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing (belts, hats, gloves, ties).[2]
• Textile mills (313) and textile product mills (314) — they make the cloth, sheets, and towels that sit upstream.
• Apparel wholesaling (424300) and clothing retail (458110) — the brands and stores that hire the contractors.

Ownership mix: almost entirely private, owner-operated, and tiny. The average establishment employs about 11 people, and the average firm books under $1 million a year in revenue (federal figures, Section 3).[6][2] Many are immigrant-run shops clustered in a few garment districts — California dominates, with roughly 1,332 establishments and 10,800 employees (about 64% of national establishments and 48% of employment), followed by New York, Dallas, and Miami.[21] A distinct sub-segment is defense and uniform sewing (see Sections 6–7), which is more formal and contract-driven.

3. How big it is

Federal statistics for NAICS 315210:

A few things fall out of these numbers:

• Low pay, labor-intensive work. Payroll divided by headcount is about $36,700 per worker per year — well below the U.S. manufacturing average, reflecting entry-level, hand-intensive sewing.[6]
• Micro-scale operators. ~22,700 workers across ~2,094 establishments is ~11 employees each; average revenue per firm is under $1 million. An older SBA analysis found average assets of just $0.3 million per firm, consistent with a shop-floor model rather than a capital-intensive business.[6][2][22]
• A declining base. Private research firm IBISWorld pegs the market at about $2.4 billion and describes it as roughly flat-to-down, with the shop count eroding as work goes offshore.[4]

The undercount caveat — important here. County Business Patterns counts only employer establishments (businesses with at least one paid employee on the reference date). Cut-and-sew is exactly the kind of industry where that misses a lot: home-based sewers, one-person contractors, and informal/unregistered shops — the same shadow segment that fueled the Los Angeles wage-theft cases (Section 7). IBISWorld's broader business count runs to the thousands more than the federal employer count once non-employers are included.[4] So treat the ~2,094 establishments as a floor on the number of operators, not a full census. In the other direction, this is not a government- or franchise-dominated industry, so those distortions don't apply.

4. The investable universe

Bottom line: there is no clean public play. No sizable U.S.-listed company exists whose main business is contract cut-and-sew inside the United States. The industry is too small, too fragmented, and too low-margin to support a public pure play, and the one recent listed name with heavy domestic apparel exposure went bankrupt.

Indirect public exposure (each with big caveats — tickers shown here only because this is the investable section):

(A "[—]" marks a company/business fact drawn from company disclosures and general market knowledge rather than a numbered source below; the scale figures are approximate and move with the market.)

Major private and other operators (where the industry actually lives):

• Thousands of independent contract shops in the LA, NYC, Dallas, and Miami garment districts — privately held, most under 50 employees.[5]
• Defense/tactical sewers working under the Berry Amendment (Section 7): firms such as ReadyOne Industries (a prominent military-apparel producer), Mills Manufacturing, Propper, Bearse USA, and CustomFab USA. Demand here is contract-based and protected from imports.[11][23]
• Fechheimer, which manufactures public-safety, postal, and military uniforms and is owned by Berkshire Hathaway — one of the few identifiable public-company ownership links to this space, though it is immaterial to the conglomerate and its standalone results are not disclosed.[24]
• Brand-owned "Made in USA" factories and their contractor networks — e.g., Los Angeles Apparel and the domestic cut-and-sew partners used by DTC (direct-to-consumer) brands like American Giant.[13]
• Private-equity-backed uniform and workwear platforms, which roll up small shops and long-term institutional contracts.

If you want the industry itself rather than a proxy, the realistic vehicle is direct private ownership or acquisition of a shop, not a brokerage account.

5. How the money works

Contractors sell labor and machine time, priced per garment under CMT (cut, make, trim). The brand owns the fabric; the contractor charges a fee that covers sewing labor, factory overhead (rent, machines, utilities, supervision), and a thin profit margin on top.[9]

The underlying math is a cost-per-minute × minutes-per-garment calculation. A shop works out what a minute of its factory time costs, then multiplies by the garment's SMV (standard minute value — the industry's estimate of how many minutes of sewing a garment needs). Simple T-shirts take few minutes and earn a few dollars of CMT; a structured blazer or technical jacket has many more sewing operations and commands more.[9][10] On the labor portion, contractors typically add only a ~10–15% margin, and because price is the main thing brands shop on, net margins are thin and volatile.[10]

What actually drives an owner's profit:

• Capacity utilization / throughput. Sewing lines and cutting tables are fixed costs. A shop makes money by keeping operators busy and pushing more garments per labor-hour; idle machines and empty seats destroy margin faster than almost anything else. Continuous basic programs or uniforms provide better line loading than sporadic fashion orders.
• Labor efficiency and mix. Since labor is the dominant cost, output per worker and shifting toward higher-SMV, higher-value garments (technical, protective, tailored, small-batch) is the lever that separates survivors from failures. Competing head-to-head on plain-tee CMT against Asia is a losing game.
• Order size vs. flexibility. Long runs spread setup costs and lower per-unit cost, but domestic shops increasingly win on the opposite trait — short lead times, small minimum order quantities (MOQs), reorders, and speed-to-market for brands that can't wait on an ocean container.[13]
• Wage structure. After California's 2022 law (Section 7), Golden State shops must pay hourly wages, not piece rate, which raises the labor cost floor and makes efficiency and value-mix even more decisive.[7][8]

Buyer power is substantial. Major brands source globally and maintain no long-term manufacturing contracts, giving them enormous leverage. G-III Apparel, for example, uses independent manufacturers on a purchase-order basis and believes alternative foreign manufacturers are readily available; it sourced approximately 76% of its fiscal-2025 product from Vietnam, China, and Indonesia.[25] Levi Strauss similarly sourced from manufacturers in approximately 32 countries in fiscal 2025, with no more than 30% from any one country, without material long-term contracts.[26] Domestic contractors therefore compete not only with neighboring shops but with a globally contestable supplier base.

There is no franchising, no same-store-sales, no recurring-revenue model here. It is a classic low-margin, high-cyclicality, capacity-utilization manufacturing business — closest in spirit to a machine job shop, where the enemies are underused capacity, wage inflation, and import price competition.

6. What drives demand

• Where brands choose to make clothes. The single biggest driver is the offshore-vs-domestic sourcing decision. Cheap, reliable overseas CMT (China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, plus nearshore Central America and Mexico) has pulled the vast majority of volume abroad for decades; anything that narrows that cost/reliability gap sends work home.[5][6]
• Speed, flexibility, and "Made in USA." The growth pocket is small-batch, on-demand, quick-turn production for DTC and premium brands that value short lead times, easy reorders, and a domestic label — and for shoppers willing to pay a modest premium for local goods.[13]
• Reshoring and nearshoring momentum. Rising freight costs, geopolitical risk, and supply-chain scares have pushed brands to shorten supply chains. Industry groups report renewed reshoring interest, though rebuilding at scale is slow because the surrounding infrastructure (mills, cutting houses, trained sewers) atrophied in the 2000s. Nearshoring and domestic sourcing are best understood as portfolio tools rather than a wholesale reversal of offshoring — brands may use Asian factories for predictable high-volume programs while reserving domestic capacity for test runs or fast replenishment.[13][27]
• Protected government demand. The Berry Amendment guarantees a domestic-only market for military clothing (Section 7) — a stable, import-proof source of orders for the shops that can meet its rules.[11]
• Uniforms and workwear. Healthcare, hospitality, industrial, and public-safety uniforms are a steadier, more contract-driven end market than fashion, and are less exposed to fast-fashion whims.[1]
• The fashion cycle and the macro consumer. Discretionary apparel spending, inventory swings at retailers, and fast-fashion trend churn all feed straight through to how busy contractors are. Contractors may experience greater operating leverage than brands because labor and occupancy cannot always be reduced as quickly as orders decline.[4]

7. Regulation

• Labor and wage law is the defining regulatory force. California's Garment Worker Protection Act (SB 62, effective January 1, 2022) made California the first state to ban piece-rate pay for garment work and to require an hourly wage at least at minimum wage. Critically, it makes brands and retailers jointly liable for wage theft in the shops (and subcontractors) that sew for them, and adds a $200-per-employee, per-pay-period penalty for piece-rate violations.[7][8][28] Because so much of the domestic industry sits in Los Angeles — where investigators had documented wages as low as a few dollars an hour before the law — SB 62 materially raised the cost floor for U.S. contractors and shifted risk up the chain to brands.[7]
• Federal wage/hour and immigration enforcement. The sector's small, often immigrant workforce keeps it under scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Labor and state labor commissioners; California maintains a dedicated garment registration and enforcement regime.[7] Federal law requires overtime after 40 hours per week even where workers are paid by piece rate, requires accurate time and wage records, normally prohibits garment homework, and can prevent interstate shipment of goods produced through minimum-wage, overtime, or child-labor violations.[29]
• The enforcement record is material. A Department of Labor survey of 50 Southern California garment contractors and manufacturers in 2022 found violations in 80% of cases and recovered more than $892,000 for 296 workers. In a separate action, DOL recovered $1.1 million for 165 workers, stopped shipment under the FLSA's "hot goods" provision, and obtained payment from the brand Beyond Yoga for contractor obligations.[30]
• Workplace safety. OSHA specifically identifies musculoskeletal risks from sewing stations, fine work, scissor work, and material handling in apparel manufacturing — ergonomic and repetitive-motion injuries are occupational hazards for sewing operators.[31]
• The Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. §4862). Requires the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to buy clothing, textiles, fibers, and yarns that are 100% U.S.-made — fabric, thread, buttons, zippers, and all. It's the closest thing this industry has to a protective tariff wall: it reserves military-apparel orders for domestic Berry-compliant sewers and demands component-level traceability, which favors specialized, audited shops.[11] Note that an award to buy completed uniforms or protective clothing is not necessarily 315210 activity: the government is often purchasing finished goods rather than paying a contractor to process government-owned fabric.[32]
• Labeling and origin claims. FTC rules require most apparel to disclose fiber content, country of origin, and the responsible manufacturer or marketer. Unqualified "Made in USA" claims generally require the product to be all or virtually all made domestically.[33][34]
• Trade policy and tariffs. Import rules set the competitive backdrop. The 2025 suspension and pending 2027 statutory repeal of the "de minimis" exemption — which had let sub-$800 parcels (the Shein/Temu model) enter duty-free — raises the landed cost of the cheapest imported apparel and, at the margin, tilts the field back toward domestic and nearshore production.[12] Trade agreements such as USMCA (the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement) and CAFTA-DR (the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement) shape which foreign sewing is cheapest to source from.

8. Competitive dynamics and consolidation

This is one of the most fragmented manufacturing industries in the United States — and it is fragmenting further, not consolidating. The federal concentration data make the point starkly:[2]

An HHI (a standard 0–10,000 concentration score; U.S. antitrust regulators treat anything under 1,500 as "unconcentrated") of ~80 is effectively atomized — no firm has meaningful pricing power, and it takes the 50 largest firms combined just to reach half the market.[2] The competitive reality:

• Price competition is brutal and mostly lost to imports. Domestic shops can't win the commodity-CMT fight against Asian labor costs; the whole industry has been in secular decline as brands offshore.[5][6]
• The defensible ground is non-price: speed, small MOQs, reliability, compliance (Berry, "Made in USA" audit trails), and higher-value or protective garments. Those niches are too small and specialized for roll-up economics.
• Consolidation is limited. There's some private-equity roll-up activity in uniforms and workwear (where long-term institutional contracts create durable revenue), but the fashion-facing contract-sewing base remains a sea of tiny, independent, often family- or immigrant-owned shops. The recent corporate story that touched this space was a failure, not a merger — Delta Apparel's 2024 bankruptcy and asset breakup.[15]

9. Risks

• Import competition is existential. The core structural risk is simple: overseas CMT is far cheaper, and any easing of tariffs, freight, or geopolitics can wipe out the domestic cost advantage overnight.[5][6]
• Thin, fragile margins. With ~10–15% markups on labor and price-shopping customers, a small move in wages, rent, or utilization flips a shop from profit to loss.[10]
• Labor cost and availability. Hourly-wage mandates (SB 62), minimum-wage increases, and a shrinking pool of skilled sewers all push the cost floor up; the trained-labor pipeline has thinned after decades of decline.[8][13]
• Legal and reputational exposure. Wage-theft liability now reaches up the chain to brands, so compliance failures can cost a shop its customers, not just fines. The 80% violation rate in recent DOL inspections underscores the enforcement risk.[7][30]
• Customer concentration and cyclicality. Many shops depend on a handful of brand clients; apparel demand is discretionary and inventory-driven, so downturns hit hard and fast.[4]
• Reshoring may disappoint. The bullish "Made in USA" thesis depends on infrastructure (mills, cutting houses, labor) that takes years or decades to rebuild — reshoring headlines can outrun the industry's actual capacity to absorb the work.[13]
• No public liquidity. For investors, the practical risk is that exposure is illiquid and private; the listed proxies are either offshore-weighted or in adjacent businesses, and the one domestic-heavy listing recently failed.[15]

10. How to invest and the outlook

Public routes (indirect and imperfect):

• Integrated apparel makers like Gildan (GIL) and Hanesbrands (HBI) give exposure to garment manufacturing economics, but their sewing is largely offshore and self-owned — a bet on global basics, not on U.S. contract sewing.
• Uniform and workwear names — Cintas (CTAS), UniFirst (UNF), Aramark (ARMK), Superior Group of Companies (SGC) — track the steadier, contract-driven end market, but the money is in rental/service, not domestic CMT.
• Protective/industrial garment makers such as Lakeland Industries (LAKE) offer a partial read on Berry/PPE-type domestic demand.
• Recognize the ceiling: there is no pure-play domestic contractor to buy, and the last domestic-heavy listing (Delta Apparel) went bankrupt in 2024.[15] Claims that an apparel-brand stock is a direct public comparable for this industry should be rejected: brands own intellectual property, inventory, marketing, and distribution economics, while 315210 contractors principally sell labor-intensive conversion capacity.

Private routes (where the real exposure is):

• Buy or build a shop — most directly, acquire an existing contract sewer, ideally one positioned in a defensible niche (quick-turn DTC, tailored/technical garments, or Berry-compliant defense sewing with its protected, import-proof demand).[11]
• Uniform/workwear roll-ups via private equity, where long-term institutional contracts create the recurring revenue the fashion side lacks.
• Brand-owned domestic production — for a founder, vertically integrating a "Made in USA" apparel brand captures the contractor margin in-house.[13]

Near-term drivers to watch (forward-looking):

• Tariff and de-minimis follow-through. If the 2025 suspension and 2027 repeal of duty-free sub-$800 imports meaningfully raise the cost of ultra-cheap fast fashion, domestic and nearshore shops should see marginal work come back — the single biggest potential tailwind.[12]
• Reshoring translating into orders, not just announcements. Watch whether brand commitments and small-batch demand actually convert to sustained factory utilization, given the thin labor and mill infrastructure.[13]
• Wage-law spread. Whether other states follow California's SB 62 model would further raise the domestic cost floor — good for worker pay, harder for shop margins.[7][8]
• Defense and uniform budgets. Berry-linked military and institutional uniform demand is the industry's most stable base and least exposed to the import cycle.[11]

The honest outlook: the domestic cut-and-sew contractor industry is small and secularly challenged, and nothing on the horizon restores it to its 20th-century scale. But the ground is shifting in its favor at the margin — tariffs on cheap imports, speed-and-flexibility demand, "Made in USA" preference, and protected defense orders. The opportunity is narrow and private: well-run shops in defensible niches, not a broad public-market trade. For most investors, the useful takeaway is that 315210 is best understood as a barometer of reshoring and trade policy, and as a private acquisition or founder opportunity, rather than a sector to own through a stock ticker.

---

Sources

1. U.S. Census Bureau / NAICS Association. "NAICS Code 315210 — Cut and Sew Apparel Contractors (definition)." 2022. https://www.census.gov/naics/ (industry description via https://www.ibisworld.com/classifications/naics/315210/cut-and-sew-apparel-contractors/)
2. U.S. Census Bureau. "2022 Economic Census — Concentration Ratios and Selected Statistics, NAICS 315210 (firms, receipts, CR4/CR8/CR20/CR50, HHI)." 2022. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census.html
3. U.S. Small Business Administration. "Table of Small Business Size Standards (NAICS 315210 = 750 employees)." 2023. https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards
4. IBISWorld. "Cut & Sew Apparel Contractors in the US — Industry Analysis." 2026. https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/industry/cut-sew-apparel-contractors/339/
5. AllAmerican.org. "State of American Clothing Manufacturing Report." 2024. https://allamerican.org/research/clothing-manufacturing-report/
6. U.S. Census Bureau. "County Business Patterns 2023, NAICS 315210 (establishments, employment, payroll)." 2023. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html
7. Remake / Fashion Revolution. "FAQ: The Garment Worker Protection Act (SB 62)." 2022. https://remake.world/stories/faq-the-garment-worker-protection-act-sb62/
8. Epstein Becker Green (Wage & Hour Blog) / National Law Review. "California Becomes First State to Ban Piece Rate Pay for Garment Workers." 2021. https://www.wagehourblog.com/california-becomes-first-state-to-ban-piece-rate-pay-for-garment-workers
9. Cosmo Sourcing. "CMT Explained: What Cut, Make, and Trim Mean When You're Sourcing Apparel." 2024. https://www.cosmosourcing.com/blog/what-does-cut-make-and-trim-cmt-mean
10. Jinfeng Apparel. "How to Cost a Garment for CMT (Cut, Make, and Trim)?" 2024. https://jinfengapparel.com/how-to-cost-a-garment-for-cmt-cut-make-and-trim/
11. U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary (Acquisition & Sustainment) / US Made Supply. "The Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. §4862)." 2024. https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/ic/berry-amendment.html
12. Forbes / CNN Business. "Trump Suspends De Minimis Tariff Exemption for Goods Under $800 (Temu, Shein)." 2025. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2025/07/30/trump-suspends-de-minimis-tariff-exemption-for-goods-under-800/
13. Maker's Row / SEAMS / USMadeFinds. "Apparel & Garment Industry Trends in the USA — Reshoring, Small-Batch and On-Demand Manufacturing." 2025–2026. https://makersrow.com/blog/apparel-garment-industry-usa/
14. SEAMS — The Association and Voice of the U.S. Sewn Products Industry. "State of the Industry." 2025. https://seams.org/blog/august-2025-state-of-the-industry-seams-members-industry-insiders-share-insights/
15. Advertising Specialty Institute (ASI) / PPAI. "Delta Apparel Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy; Assets Sold (Salt Life, Soffe)." 2024. https://members.asicentral.com/news/industry-news/july-2024/delta-apparel-s-stock-to-be-delisted-amid-bankruptcy/
16. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Apparel Manufacturing: NAICS 315 (employment)." 2025. https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag315.htm
17. United States Fashion Industry Association. "The State of U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing, Employment, and Trade." 2025. https://www.usfashionindustry.com/news/fashion-intel-analysis/the-state-of-u-s-textile-and-apparel-manufacturing-employment-and-trade
18. U.S. International Trade Commission. "Apparel: Textiles and Apparel Technical Guide." 2023. https://www.usitc.gov/keywords/textiles_and_apparel
19. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics / Census Bureau. "NAICS Revision Attachment — 2017 Benchmark Data for 315210." 2020. https://downloads.regulations.gov/USBC-2020-0004-0028/attachment_1.pdf
20. U.S. Census Bureau. "2022 NAICS Manual — Industry Definitions." 2022. https://www.census.gov/naics/reference_files_tools/2022_NAICS_Manual.pdf
21. California Employment Development Department. "QCEW Industry Data, NAICS 315210, 2022." 2022. https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/qcew/CEW-Detail_NAICS.asp
22. U.S. Small Business Administration. "Size Standards Analysis, NAICS 315210 (firm size, assets, concentration)." 2022. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-08091.pdf
23. ReadyOne Industries. "About — Military Apparel Manufacturing." 2025. https://www.readyone.org/
24. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. "2023 Form 10-K (Fechheimer ownership)." 2024. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1067983/000095017024019719/brka-20231231.htm
25. G-III Apparel Group, Ltd. "Fiscal 2025 Form 10-K (sourcing, buyer power)." 2025. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/821002/000155837025003540/giii-20250131x10k.htm
26. Levi Strauss & Co. "Fiscal 2025 Form 10-K (sourcing diversification)." 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/94845/000009484526000008/lvis-20251130.htm
27. International Trade Administration / SelectUSA. "Textiles Industry Overview — Reshoring and Nearshoring." 2025. https://www.trade.gov/selectusa-textiles-industry
28. California Department of Industrial Relations. "Garment Industry — SB 62 and Registration Requirements." 2022. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Garment/
29. U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. "Garment Industry Compliance Toolkit." 2024. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/compliance-assistance/toolkits/garment
30. U.S. Department of Labor. "DOL Recovers More Than $892,000 for 296 Garment Workers in Southern California; Beyond Yoga Enforcement Action." 2024. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20240103-1
31. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "Apparel and Footwear Industry — Ergonomic Hazards." 2025. https://www.osha.gov/apparel-footwear
32. U.S. Small Business Administration. "Federal Procurement Size Standards — Apparel and PPE Clarification." 2023. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-02780.pdf
33. U.S. Federal Trade Commission. "Threading Your Way Through the Labeling Requirements Under the Textile and Wool Acts." 2024. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/threading-your-way-through-labeling-requirements-under-textile-wool-acts
34. U.S. Federal Trade Commission. "Complying with the Made in USA Standard." 2024. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/complying-made-usa-standard