AAFA, NCTO request PPE clarification for H 7356A in Rhode Island state

Currently, the draft’s definition for ‘apparel’ lists ‘clothing items intended for regular wear or formal occasions’ and ‘outdoor apparel’ and goes onto specify that ‘clothing items intended for regular wear or formal occasions does not include personal protective equipment or clothing items for exclusive use by the United States military’.

As a result of this exemption being listed solely under ‘clothing items intended for regular wear or formal occasions’, it raises the question whether outdoor apparel PPE or outdoor apparel clothing items for exclusive use by the US military are in scope of the legislation, the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) and the National Council of Textile Organisations (NCTO) wrote in the letter.

Several other states, such as California, Colorado, New York and Vermont, have enacted PFAS-apparel laws that exempt personal protective equipment and clothing items for exclusive use by the US military—or used similar language—from the entire scope of the law, the letter noted.

“This change would be in-line with PFAS regulatory statutes adopted by several other states, and we believe it is in the spirit of what the legislation aims to accomplish,” the letter added.

Fibre2Fashion News Desk (DS)