Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 36171

remaining SIAPs, an effective date at

least 30 days after publication is

provided.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this

amendment are based on the criteria

contained in the U.S. Standard for

Terminal Instrument Approach

Procedures (TERPS). In developing

these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were

applied to the conditions existing or

anticipated at the affected airports.

Because of the close and immediate

relationship between these SIAPs and

safety in air commerce, I find that notice

and public procedure before adopting

these SIAPs are impracticable and

contrary to the public interest and,

where applicable, that good cause exists

for making some SIAPs effective in less

than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation only involves an established

body of technical regulations for which

frequent and routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally

current. It, therefore—(1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. For the same

reason, the FAA certifies that this

amendment will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air traffic control, Airports,

Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC on June 26,

1998.

Tom E. Stuckey,

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, part 97 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 97) is amended by establishing,

amending, suspending, or revoking

Standard Instrument Approach

Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on

the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT

APPROACH PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 97 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120, 44701; and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).

2. Part 97 is amended to read as

follows:

§§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33,

97.35 [Amended]

By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/

DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME

or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME,

LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME;

§ 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS,

ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME,

MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs;

§ 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35

COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows:

* * * Effective 16 July 1998

Louisville, KY, Louisville Intl-Standiford

Field, GPS RWY 17R, Orig

Louisville, KY, Louisville Intl-Standiford

Field, GPS RWY 35L, Orig

Louisville, KY, Louisville Intl-Standiford

Field, ILS RWY 17L, Amdt 1

Louisville, KY, Louisville Intl-Standiford

Field, ILS RWY 35R, Amdt 1

Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne

County, ILS RWY 3R, Amdt 13

* * * Effective 13 August 1998

Kenai, AK, Kenai Muni, VOR RWY 19, Amdt

16

Kenai, AK, Kenai Muni, ILS RWY 19, Amdt

6

Kenai, AK, Kenai Muni, GPS RWY 1, Orig

Kenai, AK, Kenai Muni, GPS RWY 19, Orig

Fort Huachuca/Sierra Vista, AZ, Libby AAFSierra Vista Muni, GPS RWY 8, Orig

Wilmington, DE, New Castle County, VOR/

DME RNAV RWY 9, Orig, CANCELLED

Marianna, FL, Marianna Muni, GPS RWY 18,

Orig

Goshen, IN, Goshen Muni, GPS RWY 9,

Amdt 1

Goshen, IN, Goshen Muni, VOR RWY 9,

Amdt 12

Goshen, IN, Goshen Muni, VOR OR GPS

RWY 27, Amdt 6

Goshen, IN, Goshen Muni, ILS/DME RWY 27,

Amdt 1, CANCELLED

Goshen, IN, Goshen Muni, ILS RWY 27, Orig

Baltimore, MD, Baltimore-Washington Intl,

ILS RWY 10, Admt 17

Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence

Logan Intl, GPS RWY 4R, Orig

Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence

Logan Intl, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 4R,

Amdt 1

Cortland, NY, Cortland County-Chase Field,

GPS RWY 6, Orig

Burlington, NC, Burlington-Alamance

Regional, LOC RWY 6, Amdt 1

Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, VOR/

DME RWY 18R, Amdt 6, CANCELLED

Charlotte, NC, Charlotte/Douglas Intl, VOR

RWY 36R, Amdt 5A, CANCELLED

Wadesboro, NC, Anson County, VOR/DME

OR GPS–A, Amdt 1, CANCELLED

Lancaster, OH, Fairfield County, VOR OR

GPS–A, Amdt 10

Lancaster, OH, Fairfield County, LOC RWY

28, Amdt 1

Lancaster, OH, Fairfield County, NDB OR

GPS RWY 28, Amdt 8

Lancaster, OH, Fairfield County, VOR/DME

RNAV OR GPS RWY 10, Amdt 10

Bradford, PA, Bradford Regional ILS RWY

32, Amdt 10

Florence, SC, Florence Regional, GPS RWY 1,

Orig

Florence, SC, Florence Regional, GPS RWY 9,

Orig

Florence, SC, Florence Regional, GPS RWY

19, Orig

Hohenwald, TN, John A. Baker Field, NDB

RWY 2, Orig

Price, UT, Carbon County, GPS RWY 36, Orig

* * * Effective 8 OCT 1998

Hot Springs, AR, Memorial Field, VOR RWY

5, Amdt 16

Hot Springs, AR, Memorial Field, ZAPLE

VOR RWY 5, Amdt 4

Hot Springs, AR, Memorial Field, NDB RWY

5, Amdt 7

Hot Springs, AR, Memorial Field, ILS RWY

5, Amdt 14

Hot Springs, AR, Memorial Field, GPS RWY

5, Orig

Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Downtown

Heliport, COPTER GPS 291, Orig

*** Effective Upon Publication

Bentonville, AR, Bentonville Muni/Louise M

Thadden Field, GPS RWY 18, Amdt 1

Bentonville, AR, Bentonville Muni/Louise M

Thadden Field, GPS RWY 36, Amdt 1

[FR Doc. 98–17631 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 303

Rules and Regulations Under the

Textile Fiber Products Identification

Act

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (‘‘Commission’’)

announces amendments to Rule 7 of the

Rules and Regulations Under the Textile

Fiber Products Identification Act

(‘‘Textile Rules’’), to designate two new

generic fiber names and establish two

new generic fiber definitions for fibers

manufactured by BASF Corporation

(‘‘BASF’’) of Mt. Olive, New Jersey, and

DuPont Advanced Fiber Systems

(‘‘DuPont’’) of Wilmington, Delaware.

The amendments create a new

subsection (w) to Rule 7 that establishes

the name ‘‘melamine’’ for a fiber for

which BASF has registered the trade

name ‘‘Basofil’’; and a new subsection

(x) to Rule 7 that establishes the name

‘‘fluoropolymer’’ for a fiber that DuPont

designates by the registered name

‘‘Teflon.’’

DATES: Effective: July 2, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James G. Mills, Attorney, Division of

Enforcement, Federal Trade

Commission, Washington, DC 20580;

(202) 326–3035, FAX: (202) 326–3259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
36172 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1 63 FR 449, at 449–50 (Jan. 6, 1998). For brevity’s

sake, the Commission is providing a simplified

description of the fiber today, and refers those

members of the public who wish to see detailed

technical information about the fiber to the earlier

description in the NPR.

I. Background

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

Section 4(b)(1) of the Textile Fiber

Products Identification Act (‘‘the Act’’)

declares that a textile product will be

misbranded unless it is labeled to show,

among other elements, the percentages,

by weight, of the constituent fibers (or

fiber combinations) in the product,

designated by their generic name and in

order of predominance by weight. 15

U.S.C. 70b(b)(1). Section 4(c) of the Act

provides that the same information

required by section 4(b)(1) (except the

percentages) must appear in written

advertisements for covered textile

products. 15 U.S.C. 70b(c). Section 7(c)

empowers the Commission to

promulgate such rules, including the

establishment of generic names of

manufactured fibers, as are necessary to

enforce the Act’s directives. 15 U.S.C.

70e(c).

Rule 6 of the Textile Rules requires

manufacturers to use the generic names

of the fibers contained in their textile

fiber products in making required

disclosures of the fiber content of the

products. 16 CFR 303.6. Rule 7 sets

forth the generic names and definitions

that the Commission has established for

synthetic fibers. 16 CFR 303.7. Rule 8

sets forth the procedures for establishing

new generic names. 16 CFR 303.8.

B. Procedural History

On March 22, 1996, BASF and

DuPont submitted their applications to

the Commission separately. The

applications and related materials were

placed on the rulemaking record.

BASF stated that Basofil fiber, which

is mostly used in combination with

other heat- and flame-resistant fibers, is

intended for use in applications where

heat and flame resistance and low

flammability are vital, including fireblocking fabrics, protective apparel and

heat-insulating fabrics. BASF stated

that, because the unique chemistry of

Basofil fiber is inadequately described

under the existing generic names listed

in the Textile Rules, a new generic name

and definition should be established.

DuPont states that it has

manufactured a fiber it calls ‘‘Teflon

PTFE fluorocarbon fiber’’ or ‘‘Teflon

fiber’’ since the 1950’s for industrial

applications, but that it expected to

begin commercial sales of the fiber in

socks beginning in late April 1996.

DuPont explained that it was petitioning

the Commission to establish a new

name and definition for its fiber in its

new use in textile fiber products

covered by the Textile Rules because

none of the current generic fiber

definitions in Rule 7 of the Textile Rules

is appropriate for Teflon fiber.

On June 25, 1996, the Commission

issued BASF the designation ‘‘BC 0001’’

and DuPont the designation ‘‘DP 0001’’

for temporary use in identifying Basofil

and Teflon PTFE fluorocarbon fiber,

respectively, pending a final

determination as to the merits of the

applications for new generic names. The

Commission staff analyzed the

applications as well as additional

materials that the two companies

subsequently submitted separately at

the staff’s request. On January 6, 1998,

the Commission published two Notices

of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’)

detailing the technical aspects of

BASF’s (63 FR 449) and DuPont’s (63 FR

447) fibers and requesting public

comment on whether to add new

generic fiber names and definitions to

Rule 7 of the Textile Rules to describe

them. On March 23, 1998, the comment

periods created by the two NPRs closed.

No comments were received in either

matter.

II. Description of the Fibers and

Solicitation of Comments in the NPRs

A. The Commission’s Criteria for

Granting a New Generic Name and

Definition Under Rule 7

In the NPRs, the Commission solicited

comment on the petitioners’

applications and asked whether the

applications met the following criteria,

which the Commission first announced

at 38 FR 34,112 (Dec. 11, 1973) as

grounds for the granting of petitions for

new generic names, and later clarified

and reaffirmed on Dec. 6, 1995, 60 FR

62,352, and again on May 23, 1997, 62

FR 28,342:

1. The fiber for which a generic name

is requested must have a chemical

composition radically different from

other fibers,and that distinctive

chemical composition must result in

distinctive physical properties of

significance to the general public.

2. The fiber must be in active

commercial use or such use must be

immediately foreseen.

3. The grant of the generic name must

be of importance to the consuming

public at large, rather than to a small

group of knowledgeable professionals

such as purchasing officers for large

Government agencies.

B. The BASF NPR

1. Fiber Description and Proposed Name

and Definition

The BASF NPR provided a detailed

description, taken from BASF’s

application, of Basofil’s chemical

composition and physical and chemical

properties.1 BASF maintained that,

because of its unique melamineformaldehyde chemistry, Basofil is

especially well-suited for applications

in which heat and flame resistance are

needed. BASF thus intends to use

Basofil in the manufacture of heat- and

flame-resistant textile products like fireblocking fabrics, gloves and aprons and

other protective apparel. BASF

described Basofil chemically as follows:

The product is a fiber made from a

condensation polymer of melamine

derivatives and formaldehyde * * *. In the

condensation reaction, methylol compounds

are formed which then react with one

another to form a three-dimensional structure

of methylene ether and methylene bridges.

The chemical composition of Basofil fiber

is based upon a three-dimensional crosslined structure containing methylene links,

such as (Melamine-NH-CH2-NH-Melamine)

and dimethylene ether links such as

(Melamine-NH-CH2-O-CH2-NH-Melamine).

The melamine can also be modified to

contain hydroxyl groups.

The network structure of Basofil fiber

provides the characteristics found in

melamine-based resins—heat stability,

solvent resistance, and low flammability.

BASF stated that Basofil combines fire

protection and heat stability with good

chemical, hydrolysis and ultraviolet

resistance, and that the fiber, which is

white and dyeable, can be processed on

standard textile manufacturing

equipment for the production of woven,

knitted, and nonwoven fabrics. BASF

further asserted that Basofil’s most

outstanding physical properties are its

high Limiting Oxygen Index (LOI), low

thermal conductivity, heat dimensional

stability, and the fact that it does not

shrink, melt or drip when exposed to a

flame.

The Commission proposed the

following fiber name and definition for

Basofil, which has been suggested by

BASF:

Melamine. A manufactured fiber in

which the fiber-forming substance is a

synthetic polymer composed of at least

50% by weight of a cross-linked

melamine polymer.

In proposing this definition in the

BASF NPR, the Commission noted that

BASF had explained that the unusually

low (50%) threshold for the principal

element of the fiber (the cross-linked

melamine polymer) in the definition is

based on the possibility that Basofil may

be modified in the future to contain

other components typically found in

fiber formulations, such as dispersing
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 36173

2 63 FR 447, at 447–48 (Jan. 6, 1998). For brevity’s

sake, the Commission is providing a simplified

description of the fiber today, and refers those

members of the public who wish to see detailed

technical information about the fiber to the earlier

description in the NPR.

aids, fillers, flame retardants, heat or

light stabilizers, optical modifiers, etc.

2. Discussion of the Three Criteria

a. Distinctive Chemical Composition

and Physical Properties of Importance to

the Public

The materials submitted by BASF

show that Basofil fiber is based upon

unique melamine chemistry that is not

encompassed by any existing definition

in Rule 7 and that results in a fiber with

the physical property of significant

resistance to heat and flame. This

property is very important to those

members of the general public (for

example, cooks, foundry workers,

welders, and fire-fighters) who need

textile fiber products that are highly

resistant to heat and flame. Thus,

BASF’s application meets this first

criterion.

b. Active Commercial Use

BASF stated in the materials it

submitted that it has begun to import

Basofil fiber and to market the fiber to

potential end users. When it filed its

petition, BASF was in the process of

building a plant in Enka, North

Carolina, capable of producing

approximately 3.6 million pounds of

Basofil. Counsel for BASF has informed

Commission staff that the plant is

currently operational. Such a level of

production for distribution satisfies this

second criterion.

c. Importance to the Consuming Public

The Commission agrees with BASF

that the granting of a generic name to

describe Basofil is of importance to the

general public, and not just a few

knowledgeable professionals such as

purchasing officers for large

Government agencies, because of the

importance of Basofil’s properties to all

consumers in need of textile fiber

products with resistance to heat and

flame. The Commission believes that

granting a generic name and definition

for Basofil fiber will assist consumers

seeking high heat and flame resistance

to identify those textile fiber products

containing Basofil. Thus, the

application satisfies this final criterion.

d. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the

Commission finds that BASF’s fiber

Basofil is of a distinctive chemical

composition not encompassed by any of

the Textile Rules’ existing generic

definitions for manufactured fibers, that

its physical properties are important to

the public, that the fiber is in active

commercial use, and that the granting of

a new generic name and definition is

important to the consuming public at

large. Because the Commission has

received no additional information

bearing on this issue beyond that

available to it when it proposed in the

NPR to amend Rule 7 to include a name

and definition for Basofil, the

Commission amends Rule 7 of the

Textile Rules by adding the following

new name and definition for BASF’s

fiber:

Melamine. A manufactured fiber in

which the fiber-forming substance is a

synthetic polymer composed of at least

50% by weight of a cross-linked

melamine polymer.

C. The DuPont NPR

1. Fiber Description and Proposed Name

and Definition

The DuPont NPR provided a detailed

description, taken from DuPont’s

application, of Teflon PTFE

fluorocarbon fiber’s chemical

composition and physical and chemical

properties.2 DuPont described Teflon

PTFE fluorocarbon fiber generally as

inherently low friction, water-resistant,

flame-resistant, and low modulus (i.e.,

with a high degree of flexibility, so

textile products that are made from the

fiber will drape easily to conform to the

shape of the wearer, and will feel soft

and comfortable to the touch). DuPont

expects the initial market for the fiber to

be sports apparel where fabrics from

Teflon fiber and blends containing it

may reduce the chance of skin irritation

and may have other desirable

characteristics, such as permanent

water- and stain- resistance, softer hand,

and improved comfort.

DuPont described the chemical

characteristics of Teflon PTFE

fluorocarbon fibers and the base resins

used to make the fibers as follows:

Teflon PTFE fluorocarbon resins and fibers

developed by DuPont have unusually high

thermo-chemical resistance and display

exceptionally low coefficients of friction. The

molecular structure of Teflon PTFE

fluorocarbon consists of long chains of

carbon atoms fully saturated by fluorine

atoms. The carbon-fluorine bonds are

extremely strong and the carbon-carbon

bonds are well-shielded by the fluorine

atoms * * * Molecules of Teflon PTFE

fluorocarbons are electrically neutral and

therefore lack the strong polar forces that

bind together the molecules of other fibers

such as nylon or cellulose. However, the

extreme regularity of the molecules permits

very close packing.

DuPont stated that the coefficient of

friction of Teflon PTFE fluorocarbon

fiber is the lowest of all known fibers,

and that, because the static coefficient of

friction is only slightly higher than the

dynamic value, the fiber does not

exhibit ‘‘stick-slip’’ behavior, which

means that the fiber feels very smooth

and slippery when rubbed between the

fingers, rather than periodically

catching and slipping. DuPont also

asserted that its fiber is the most

chemically resistant fiber known, and

that the only known solvents for Teflon

fiber or resin are selected perfluorinated

organic liquids at temperatures above

570° F (299° C).

DuPont asserted that continuous

exposure to temperatures below 400° F

(204° C) ordinarily does not degrade the

fiber, and that the fiber is stable over a

wide range of temperatures. According

to DuPont, the fiber becomes less

ductile at extremely low temperatures

and softens at extremely high

temperatures, and that adequate

toughness and strength are available for

selected uses at temperatures as low as

¥450° F (¥268° C) and as high as 550°

F (288° C). DuPont also asserted that

Teflon PTFE fluorocarbon fiber has

significant resistance to sunlight and the

effects of weather.

The Commission proposed the

following fiber name and definition,

which had been suggested by DuPont:

Fluoropolymer. A manufactured fiber

containing at least 95% of a long-chain

polymer synthesized from aliphatic

fluorocarbon monomers.

DuPont suggested ‘‘fluoropolymer’’ in

its application so the fiber’s name

would be consistent with all other

products that DuPont sells under the

brand name ‘‘Teflon,’’ and because the

name ‘‘fluoropolymer’’ is already wellestablished in association with its

Teflon PTFE fluorocarbon fiber. The

Commission noted in the DuPont NPR,

however, that a name—‘‘fluorofibre’’—

has already been established for this

type of fiber by the International

Organization for Standardization

(‘‘ISO’’) for fibers (like Teflon PTFE

fluorocarbon fiber) that are composed of

linear macromolecules made from

aliphatic fluorocarbon monomers. The

Commission therefore solicited

comment on whether, in the interests of

international standardization of fiber

terminology, the ISO generic name

(spelled ‘‘fluorofibre’’ or ‘‘fluorofiber’’)

would be more appropriate than

DuPont’s suggested name

(‘‘fluoropolymer’’) to describe fibers

similar to DuPont’s Teflon PTFE

fluorocarbon fiber.
36174 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

3Amendments to the Textile Rules promulgated

since the NPRs were published now permit the

description of generic fibers defined in Rule 7 by

means of the ISO designations. 68 FR 7,508; 7,510–

11; 7,518 (Feb. 13, 1998). Thus, marketers who wish

to use ‘‘fluorofibre’’ (or ‘‘fluorofiber’’) to describe

DuPont’s fiber now may do so pursuant to that

amendment, or they could use ‘‘fluoropolymer’’ in

accordance with today’s amendment.

2. Discussion of the Three Criteria

a. Distinctive Chemical Composition

and Physical Properties of Importance to

the Public

The facts that the coefficient of

friction of Teflon PTFE fluorocarbon

fiber is the lowest of all known fibers,

that the fiber is the most chemically

resistant fiber known, and that the fiber

is stable over a wide range of

temperatures, together with its unique

molecular structure, result in a

distinctive chemical composition and

distinctive physical properties. The

Commission agrees with DuPont that its

fiber does not fall under any of the

existing definitions in the Textile Rules.

The properties of Teflon PTFE

fluorocarbon fiber generally—low

friction, water-resistance, flameresistance, and low modulus—are of

considerable importance to the public,

because they result in a fiber that can be

used in sports apparel and other

wearing apparel where reduced skin

irritation, permanent water- and stainresistance, softer hand, and improved

comfort are highly desirable. Thus, the

application meets this first criterion.

b. Active Commercial Use

DuPont has informed Commission

staff that it is currently producing

Teflon PTFE fluorocarbon fiber in

significant quantities for use in sportsrelated textile wearing apparel, and that

it has observed manufacturers in Japan

beginning to market similar fibers in

markets abroad. Consequently, the

criterion for active commercial use is

satisfied.

c. Importance to the Consuming Public

As discussed above, Teflon PTFE

fluorocarbon fiber exhibits the

characteristics of low friction, waterand flame-resistance, and low modulus.

The Commission believes that granting

a new generic name to identify this fiber

is of importance to the consuming

public at large, and not just to a few

knowledgeable professionals, because it

will enable consumers to recognize

garments (such as hiking and athletic

socks) with a reduced chance of skin

irritation, significant water- and stainresistance, softer hand, and improved

comfort. Thus, DuPont’s application

meets this third criterion.

d. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the

Commission finds that DuPont’s Teflon

PTFE fluorocarbon fiber is of a

distinctive chemical composition not

encompassed by any of the Textile

Rules’ existing generic definitions for

manufactured fibers, that its physical

properties are important to the public,

that the fiber is in active commercial

use, and that the granting of a new

generic name and definition is

important to the consuming public at

large. Because the Commission has

received no additional information

bearing on this issue (including whether

to adopt the name ‘‘fluorofiber/

fluorofibre’’ instead of DuPont’s

proposed name ‘‘fluoropolymer’’) 3

beyond that available to it when it

proposed in the DuPont NPR to amend

Rule 7 to include a name and definition

for Teflon PTFE fluorocarbon fiber, the

Commission amends Rule 7 of the

Textile Rules by adding the following

new name and definition for DuPont’s

fiber:

Fluoropolymer. A manufactured fiber

containing at least 95% of a long-chain

polymer synthesized from aliphatic

fluorocarbon monomers.

III. Effective Date

The Commission is making the

amendments effective today, as

permitted by 5 U.S.C. 553(d), because

the amendments do not create new

obligations under the Rule; rather, they

merely create a fiber name and

definition that the public may use to

comply with the Rule.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

In the two NPRs, the Commission

tentatively concluded that the

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act relating to an initial regulatory

analysis, 5 U.S.C. 603–604, did not

apply to the proposals because the

amendments, if promulgated, would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission believed that the

proposed amendments would impose

no additional obligations, penalties, or

costs. The amendments simply would

allow covered companies to use new

generic names for new fibers that may

not appropriately fit within current

generic names and definitions, and

would impose no additional labeling

requirements. To ensure, however, that

no substantial economic impact was

overlooked, the Commission solicited

public comment in the two NPRs on the

effects of the proposed amendment on

costs, profits, competitiveness of, and

employment in small entities. 63 FR

447, at 448–49; 63 FR 449, at 451 (Jan.

6, 1998).

No comments were received on this

(or any other) issue in response to the

two NPRs. Accordingly, the

Commission hereby certifies, pursuant

to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 605(b), that the amendments

promulgated today will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

These amendments do not constitute

‘‘collection[s] of information’’ under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Pub. L. 104–13, 109 Stat. 163, 44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35 (as amended), and its

implementing regulations, 5 CFR 1320

et seq. (1997). Those procedures for

establishing generic names that do

constitute collections of information, 16

CFR 303.8 (1997), have been submitted

to OMB, which has approved them and

assigned them control number 3084–

0101.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 303

Labeling, Textile, Trade Practices.

VI. Text of Amendments

For reasons set forth in the preamble,

16 CFR Part 303 is amended as follows:

PART 303—RULES AND

REGULATIONS UNDER THE TEXTILE

FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION

ACT

1. The authority citation for part 303

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 7(c) of the Textile Fiber

Products Identification Act (15 U.S.C. 70e(c)).

2. In § 303.7, paragraphs (w) and (x)

are added, to read as follows:

§ 303.7 Generic names and definitions for

manufactured fibers.

* * * * *

(w) Melamine. A manufactured fiber

in which the fiber-forming substance is

a synthetic polymer composed of at

least 50% by weight of a cross-linked

melamine polymer.

(x) Fluoropolymer. A manufactured

fiber containing at least 95% of a longchain polymer synthesized from

aliphatic fluorocarbon monomers.

By direction of the Commission.

Benjamin I. Berman,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17541 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M