No number, and that is deliberate
On this page10
Title 16 is unusually numeric about textiles
Five percent by weight. Fifteen percent of surface area. Twenty percent of surface area. Three percent by weight above thirty microns. Nineteen microns. Twenty four percent coefficient of variation.
Each of those numbers exists because a line had to be drawn
A measurement with no cut off cannot be applied, and a rule that says substantially pure invites an argument every time. So the drafting picks figures.
The virgin and new section declines to
Composed wholly of new or virgin fiber which has never been reclaimed. No percentage, no tolerance, no de minimis allowance in the text.
Which makes sense once the claim is read as a binary one
Virgin is not a quantity, it is a history. A fiber either has had a prior life or it has not, and a percentage of history is not a meaningful figure.
Compare the cashmere definition, which is entirely quantities
A diameter, a tail fraction and a dispersion limit. Cashmere is a property of the fiber as it is now and can be measured now. Virgin is a property of where the fiber came from and cannot be.
So the two sections use the drafting that fits their subject
Measure what is measurable and set a threshold. Where the thing is a provenance rather than a property, say wholly and stop.
The library has a parallel for this in a different field
A production identifier is a history too, and four properties in this library find the same absence: no lot number, no production code and no date anywhere in the container record.
Which is why a provenance claim is the hardest kind to support
Nothing about the object in front of you settles it. It has to come from the record that traveled with the object, and this shelf does not carry one.
And it is the reason no page here makes one
Nothing on these pages states where any container was made, what it was made from before, or whether any material in it is recycled. The record does not say, so the pages do not either.