[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27224-27228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13522]
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 27224]]
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR PART 23
Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Industries
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Request for public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') is
requesting public comments on proposed revisions to Sec. 23.7 of the
Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Industries (``the
Guides''). Section 23.7 of the Guides addresses claims made about
platinum products. All interested persons are hereby given notice of
the opportunity to submit written data, views and arguments concerning
this proposal.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted until August 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade
Commission, Room H-159, Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. Comments about these proposed changes to the Guides should
be identified as ``Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter
Industry--16 CFR Part 23--Comment.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio or Laura J.
DeMartino, Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580,
(202) 326-2966 or (202) 326-3030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
In a separate Federal Register Notice (``FRN''), the Commission
announced revisions to its Guides for the Jewelry Industry, renamed
Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Industries, 16 CFR
Part 23.1 The Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter
Industries (``the Guides'') address claims made about precious metals,
diamonds, gemstones and pearl products. The Commission did not revise
section 23.7 of the Guides for the Jewelry Industry, which addresses
claims made about platinum products. Industry members have indicated
the need to simplify current Commission guidance regarding claims that
a product is composed of platinum and bring this guidance into closer
accord with international standards. The Commission concluded, however,
that additional comment would be helpful to resolve certain issues.
Below, the Commission describes the comments discussing the marking of
platinum products, submitted in response to the prior FRN.2 The
Commission also discusses its proposed changes to this section. The
Commission solicits comment on this provision of the Guides and the
proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission published a FRN soliciting public comment on
amendments to the Jewelry Guides, including revisions to section
23.7 regarding platinum products. 57 FR 24996 (June 12, 1992). That
FRN was published in response to a petition proposing changes,
submitted by the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (``JVC'').
\2\ 57 FR 24996 (June 12, 1992). The comments are cited to by an
abbreviation of the commenter's name and the document number
assigned to the comment on the public record. A list of the
commenters, including the abbreviations and document numbers used to
identify each commenter, is attached as an appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Analysis of Comments
A. Background
Section 23.7 of the Guides for the Jewelry Industry states that it
is an unfair trade practice to use the words ``platinum,'' ``iridium,''
``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' or ``osmium,'' or any
abbreviations thereof, in a way likely to deceive purchasers as to the
true composition of the product. The JVC proposed adding a sentence
stating that platinum, iridium, palladium, ruthenium, rhodium, and
osmium are the platinum group metals (``PGM''). Because not every
reader of the Guides will be familiar with the term ``platinum group
metals,'' the Commission proposes including the JVC's explanatory
sentence in the Guides. The JVC also proposed adding definitions of
``platinum'' and ``quality mark.'' The Commission believes that the
proposed definition of platinum is confusing (because it defines
platinum, which is an element, as an alloy). The proposed definition of
quality mark is unnecessary because that term is defined elsewhere in
the Guides.
B. Suggested Provisions for Platinum Products
1. Proposals Based on the Voluntary Product Standards
In the Guides for the Jewelry Industry, a Note states that markings
in compliance with Commercial Standard CS 66-38 (now Voluntary Product
Standard 69-76) on the ``Marking of Articles Made Wholly or in Part of
Platinum'' will be regarded ``as among those fulfilling the
requirements relating thereto which are contained in this section.''
3 The JVC proposed incorporating the Voluntary Product Standard
(``VPS''), with some changes, into the Guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Commercial Standards were promulgated by the U.S.
Department of Commerce and administered by the National Bureau of
Standards (``NBS''). Later renamed by the NBS as Voluntary Product
Standards, they had the same legal significance as FTC guides. The
Department of Commerce and the NBS, which is now called the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, withdrew these and all other
VPS, as an economy measure, on January 20, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VPS sets out requirements for marking items as platinum. In
section 3.5(1), the VPS states that an article without solder may be
marked ``platinum'' if 985 parts per thousand are platinum group metals
and 935 parts per thousand are pure platinum. The JVC proposed changing
the requirement of 985 parts per thousand platinum group metals to 950
parts per thousand pure platinum. The FRN solicited comment on this
proposed change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The VPS provided, for the various types of PGM products,
different ``parts per thousand'' requirements for products with
solder and without solder. The JVC proposal dropped these references
to solder (except as to a proposed new product, chain articles
containing solder-filled wire, discussed infra). There was no
comment opposing this change. The Commission solicits comment on
whether references to solder should be included in the Guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourteen comments addressed this issue. Two comments opposed the
proposed standard, but offered no substantive reasons.\5\ Twelve
comments favored the revision.\6\ The Platinum Guild stated that ```950
platinum' is an accepted standard worldwide [and] [a]doption of this
standard simplifies the import and export of platinum jewelry and
allows the U.S. to properly compete with others in the international
marketplace.'' \7\ This comment was echoed verbatim by Johnson Matthey,
a major platinum producer.\8\ Because of the overwhelming support for
the change, which harmonizes the Guides with international practices,
the Commission proposes making this change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Korbelak (27) p.5 (stating that ``platinum is platinum'')
and G&B (30) p.8 (stating that platinum should remain at a ``high,
high, standard'').
\6\ Fasnacht (4); Estate (23); Jabel (47); Handy (62); ArtCarved
(155); IJA (192); Canada (209); Matthey (213); MJSA (226); Preston
(229); PGI (245); and Leach (257).
\7\ Comment 245, p.2 (stating further that other countries
``produce '950 platinum' alloys with oftentimes superior casting and
working characteristics,'' and that ``[t]he U.S. needs these
materials to be at the cutting edge of jewelry technology from a
materials standpoint'').
\8\ Matthey (213) p.2; ArtCarved (155) p.4 (stating that ``950''
is used internationally and should be the U.S. standard); Canada
(209) p.4 (stating that the proposal ``would align the [Guides] with
the current Canadian standard''); JCWA (216) p.3 (stating that
``lowering the minimum to a level of grade 900/1000 would better
reflect accepted international practice'').
\9\ The National Stamping Act, which establishes tolerance for
gold and silver, does not apply to platinum. The JVC proposed
including a Note stating that the ``actual Platinum content of an
industry product shall not be less than the Platinum content
indicated by the quality marks.'' However, because extremely minor
variances of the type allowed by the gold and silver tolerances in
the National Stamping Act might not be unfair or deceptive, the
Commission does not propose including this Note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27225]]
The JVC also suggested including in the Guides two other sections
of the VPS that state, for an article with 950 parts per thousand
platinum group metals but less than 950 parts pure platinum, that other
platinum group metals in the article be disclosed in the mark.\10\ If
the platinum is 750 parts or more, the next predominate metal should be
named (e.g., Irid-Plat, for an item containing 90% platinum and 10%
iridium). If the platinum is less than 750 parts (but at least 500
parts pure platinum), all the other platinum group metals should be
named, preceded by a number indicating the amount in parts per thousand
of that metal (e.g., 600 platinum-350 iridium).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Jabel (47) noted at p.1, that ``there's an awful lot of
real (10% iridium platinum) platinum out there that should be
acknowledged.'' This provision addresses the marketing of this
product.
\11\ VPS sections 3.5(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is seeking comment on whether it should adopt these
sections as safe harbor provisions (i.e., as examples of markings and
descriptions that are not considered unfair or deceptive). The
Commission asks that commenters address whether the marking of an item
containing between 750 and 950 parts platinum (e.g., Irid-Plat), will
be understood by consumers or whether it will be confusing. The
Commission is especially interested in how consumers will interpret a
marking where the next predominate metal precedes the word platinum.
The Commission also solicits comment on the need for separate
guidance for items containing between 750 and 950 parts pure platinum
and items containing between 500 and 750 parts pure platinum. The
Commission is considering one safe harbor provision for all items
containing less than 950 parts pure platinum, that would recommend
naming all platinum group metals in the item, preceded by a number
indicating the amount in parts per thousand of that metal. This change
may simplify Commission guidance and provide greater information to
consumers about the amount of platinum and other platinum group metals
in the item. The Commission requests comment on this approach.
The JVC also proposed including a section that states that no
article containing fewer than 500 parts per thousand of pure platinum
shall be marked ``platinum.'' This proposal differs from the VPS
section, which states that such an article can be marked ``iridium,''
``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' or ``osmium'' (whichever
predominates in the article) if the article consists of 950 parts per
thousand of platinum group metals.\12\ There was no comment on this
section. The Commission believes that referring to an article that
contains less than 500 parts pure platinum as ``platinum,'' without
qualification, may be deceptive. The Commission does not believe that
it would be deceptive to mark the item with the name of the predominate
metal in the item. The Commission recognizes, however, that the
predominate metal in such an item may be platinum (e.g., 480 platinum,
250 palladium, 220 iridium). Although the Commission proposes including
the provision, in the form it appears in the VPS, as a safe harbor
provision in the Guides, it solicits comment on whether the Guides
should address separately the situation where an item contains less
than 500 parts pure platinum, but platinum is still the predominate
metal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ VPS section 3.5(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Other Proposals
The Commission received a request for an advisory opinion from the
JVC and Platinum Guild International on November 30, 1995. The JVC and
Platinum Guild International requested that the Commission advise that
the following markings or descriptions would not be considered
deceptive: PT850 or 850 Plat; PT900 or 900 Plat; PT950 or 950 Plat; and
PT999 or 999 Plat. The minimum content for platinum would be 850 parts
per thousand. The JVC and Platinum Guild International state that these
markings are similar to markings for gold jewelry and would be more
understandable than the markings suggested in the VPS. They also state
that these markings are used in Japan and Switzerland.
The request differs from the scheme of marking that is contained in
the Voluntary Product Standard, described above. For items with less
than 950 parts pure platinum, the other component platinum group metals
would not be disclosed. Under this scheme of markings, it is unclear
how products containing less than 850 parts platinum would be
described. The Commission solicits comment on these issues and the
costs and benefits of these markings relative to those in the VPS.
3. Abbreviations and Trademarks
The JVC proposed including a section from the VPS describing the
``recognized abbreviations'' for each of the platinum group metals
(platinum, iridium, palladium, ruthenium, rhodium and osmium).13
Each is a four-letter abbreviation. The Platinum Guild suggested that
these abbreviations be changed to permit the use of two letter
abbreviations.14 The Guild stated that jewelry manufacturers have
said that ``the marking requirements and long metal abbreviations are a
deterrent to entering the marketplace with a product such as `585 PLAT
365 PALL.' Shorter abbreviations would be a real help to the platinum
segment of the jewelry industry, i.e., `585 PT.' ''15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ VPS section 5.
\14\ Comment 245, pp. 2-3. ``Plat.,'' ``irid.,'' ``pall.,''
``ruth.,'' ``rhod.,'' and ``osmi.'' could be replaced by ``PT,''
``IR,'' ``PA,'' ``RU,'' ``RH,'' and ``OS.''
\15\ Comment 245, p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two letter abbreviations are the same as those listed in the
periodic chart of the elements, but the four-letter abbreviations are
more likely to be understood by consumers with no knowledge of
chemistry. However, in response to the comments, the Commission
proposes including a provision that states that the four-letter
abbreviations are preferred, but that the use of two-letter
abbreviations on articles that consist of more than two platinum group
metals would not be objectionable. Comments on this proposal and on
whether two-letter abbreviations should be acceptable in all situations
are desired.
The JVC also recommended including in the Guides the VPS section
that requires that, if a platinum quality mark appears on an article,
the trademark of the manufacturer must also appear. The eleven
pertinent comments discussing this proposal all favored requiring a
trademark on quality-marked platinum.16 However, most gave no
reason. Platinum is not covered by the National Stamping Act, which
requires that an article that is stamped with a quality mark indicating
that it is made of gold or silver, also bear a trademark of the
manufacturer or importer. Preston stated that the Commission would be
``the next logical Federal authority * * * to close the trade mark
stamping gap for platinum products'' and that this requirement would
``help maintain uniformly high product standards by causing
manufacturers, importers, or sellers who stamp ``platinum'' on their
products to identify themselves.'' 17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Fasnacht (4); King (11); Estate (23); G&B (30); Handy
(62); McGee (112); Bridge (163); IJA (192); Canada (209); Matthey
(213); and MJSA (226).
\17\ Comment 229, p.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the Guides, however, is not to ``maintain uniformly
high product standards'' but rather to prevent unfairness and
deception. It is neither deceptive nor unfair to mark an item as
[[Page 27226]]
platinum but not to identify the trademark of the manufacturer.18
Hence, the Commission has not included in the Guides a requirement that
the trademark must accompany any platinum quality mark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ If there are problems with the product, the consumer can
seek assistance from the seller of the item (probably a retailer who
in turn may know, or seek assistance from, the manufacturer of the
item).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the JVC proposed including the list of ``exemptions''
(e.g., joint, catches, etc.) to which the quality mark is deemed not to
apply. The Commission proposes adding a note to the section stating
that a list of exemptions can be found in the appendix.
C. Suggested Provisions for Platinum-Filled Products
The JVC proposed including a subsection on ``platinum-filled'' or
``platinum overlay'' (i.e., platinum-plated) products. The FRN asked
whether a standard should be established for platinum-filled, platinum
overlay, or platinum-clad products and whether a standard that the
plating constitute at least 1/20th of the weight of the entire article
would be appropriate.
In response to this question, Preston stated that platinum-filled
and platinum overlay are not yet produced commercially by the platinum
industry. Preston also stated that since these products may be
introduced in the future, the JVC's Platinum subcommittee, ``[i]n the
absence of carefully explored standards * * * arbitrarily copied the
technology and standards for similar products in the gold industry.''
19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Comment 229, p.9; Jabel (47) p.1 (stating, ``How were
these standards established? For wear? For weight? For
appearance?''); Canada (209) p.4 (stating that the proposed standard
``deserves further study,'' and noting that ``there is industry
interest for other platinum products with approximately 585 parts
platinum per 1000 parts metal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some comments stated that a standard should be established.20
One noted that ``if [platinum plating] is currently being done, it
should have the same regulations as gold coated products.'' 21
However, another stated the same terms should not be used for gold and
platinum.22 Alexander Korbelak stated that the term ``platinum-
filled'' was deceptive.23 Others simply answered the question in
the FRN ``yes'' 24 or ``no.'' 25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Phillips (204) p.1 (stating that ``some standard for
platinum filled needs to be established''); Bruce (218) p.9 (stating
that ``platinum-filled'' products may have overseas potential and
that it would be best ``to have standards set, so that when the
opportunity comes, the material will be covered'').
\21\ Bales (156) p.9.
\22\ G&B (30) p.8.
\23\ Comment 27, p.5.
\24\ Estate (23); Schwartz (52); Handy (62); and MJSA (226).
\25\ Leach (257).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheaffer commented that ``a standard should be established for
platinum plating (regardless of how applied),'' but favored a standard
specifying minimum fineness and thickness. Sheaffer stated that a
standard based on a weight ratio ``will encourage the production of
inferior articles lacking strength and rigidity as the thickness and,
thus, the cost of the plate can readily be reduced by use of a very
thin base material.'' 26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Comment 249, p.4; ArtCarved (155) p.4 (stating that a
``coating thickness'' standard would be more appropriate than a
weight standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Platinum Guild and Johnson Matthey both favored the proposed
standard, noting that it ``will assure that a properly manufactured
product will be durable and have a reasonable precious metal content.''
27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ PGI (245) p.2 and Matthey (213) p.2 (both stating that
electroplating, or chemical deposition of platinum, although
currently not a factor in the marketplace, ``may need to be
addressed in future guides'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the comments indicate that platinum-filled products are not
currently being marketed, there are no deceptive practices occurring.
Moreover, there appears to be little consensus on what standard would
best meet consumer expectations. Thus, the Commission does not propose
including a provision for this product in the Guides at this time.
Future marketers of such products could be guided by the provisions
that apply to gold- and silver-plated products. The Commission,
however, solicits comment on whether there is a need to address
platinum-filled products in the Guides at this time, and if so, why.
D. Proposals for Solder-Filled Platinum Chain
The JVC proposed adding a provision on solder-filled platinum
chain. The FRN solicited comment on whether a standard of 850 parts per
thousand pure platinum is appropriate.
The Platinum Guild and Johnson Matthey both noted that Japan, which
consumes the greatest amount of platinum jewelry in the world, uses the
850 standard for platinum chain. They stated that the 850 standard is
appropriate, ``whether solder filled or solid wire is used in the
manufacture of the product,'' and noted that ``Internationally, little
solder filled wire is used * * * .'' Both also stated that a standard
of ``850 platinum'' for chain products ``will allow the U.S.
manufacturer to compete more fairly in the world marketplace.'' 28
MJSA stated that the proposed 850 standard for platinum chain ``is
consistent with existing industry standards and practices.'' 29
Other comments simply approved the proposed standard.30 Canada
commented that ``in Canada no specific standard is advised as the
question is under review.'' 31 Korbelak stated that such a product
should be designated ``solder-filled platinum.'' 32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ PGI (245) p.2; Matthey (213) pp.2-3.
\29\ Comment 226, p.6.
\30\ Estate (23); Handy (62); G&B (30); and Jabel (47).
\31\ Comment 209, p.4.
\32\ Comment 27, p.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the comments indicate that the proposed standard reflects
existing standards both in the U.S. and abroad, the Commission proposes
including this standard, as a safe harbor, in the Guides.
E. Proposals for Platinum in Combination with Gold Products
Finally, the JVC recommended including a section, adapted from the
Voluntary Products Standard, providing that an article in which
platinum is combined with gold so that they are ``visually separable
and easily distinguishable one from the other,'' may have the term
``platinum'' applied followed by a karat mark. However, the combination
of platinum and gold is adequately covered in the Guides by the
respective sections on platinum and gold and by the section on quality
marks.33 Thus, the Commission has concluded that it is unnecessary
to include this section in the revised Guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Section 23.8(a)(2) of the Guides deals with quality marks
on products that are a combination of two or more metals of similar
surface appearance. This section provides that ``each quality mark
should be closely accompanied by an identification of the part or
parts to which the mark is applicable.'' The Commission has
determined that the guidance provided in this section will prevent
deception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Request for Comment
The Commission seeks public comment on section 23.7 of the Guides
and all of the proposed changes discussed above. The Commission also
requests comment on the following specific questions:
1. Do products with less than 950 parts per thousand pure platinum
have the same qualities and characteristics as products with larger
amounts of platinum?
2. Products consisting of between 750 and 950 parts per 1000 pure
platinum may be marked ``platinum'' provided that the name of the next
predominant PGM precedes the word platinum. Products consisting of
between 500 and
[[Page 27227]]
750 parts per 1000 pure platinum may be marked ``platinum'' provided
that all PGM in the product are marked and preceded by a number
indicating the amount of the metal in parts per thousand. Should the
guidance for all products consisting of less than 950 parts pure
platinum be the same? If so, why? What are the reasons for having
different standards for the products?
3. For products consisting of less than 950 parts pure platinum,
what are the benefits and costs of marking each PGM contained in the
product? Should the amount of each metal, in parts per thousand, be
disclosed?
4. Should products with less than 950 parts pure platinum be marked
with only the amount of pure platinum contained in the product (e.g.,
PLAT 900)? Do consumers understand this marking? Would percentage
markings (e.g., 90% Plat) be preferable and feasible?
5. Are there any international standards for marking platinum
products? Should the Guides follow these standards? Why or why not?
6. Should products with less than 500 parts per thousand pure
platinum be marked ``platinum''? Why or why not?
7. Should platinum and other PGM be described with two letter
abbreviations? Do consumers understand two letter abbreviations?
8. Is there a need for Commission guidance regarding descriptions
of platinum-filled, platinum overlay or platinum-clad products? If so,
how should these products be addressed?
9. Should chain articles containing solder-filled wire and
consisting of at least 850 parts per thousand pure platinum be marked
``platinum''? Why or why not?
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 23
Advertising; Jewelry; Trade practices.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes to amend Title 16 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 23 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 6, 5, 38 Stat. 721, 719; 15 U.S.C. 46, 45.
2. Section 23.7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 23.7 Misuse of the words ``platinum,'' ``iridium,''
``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' and ``osmium.''
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the words ``platinum,''
``iridium,'' ``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' or ``osmium,''
or any abbreviation to mark or describe all or part of an industry
product if such marking or description misrepresents the product's true
composition. The Platinum Group Metals (PGM) are Platinum, Iridium,
Palladium, Ruthenium, Rhodium, and Osmium.
(b) The following are examples of markings and descriptions that
are not considered unfair or deceptive:
(1) The following four-letter abbreviations for each of the PGM may
be used for quality marks on articles consisting of one or two PGM:
``Plat.'' for Platinum; ``Irid.'' for Iridium; ``Pall.'' for Palladium;
``Ruth.'' for Ruthenium; ``Rhod.'' for Rhodium; and ``Osmi.'' for
Osmium. If an article contains more than two PGM, the following
abbreviations may be used for quality marks to disclose three or more
constituent metals: ``Pt.'' for Platinum; ``Ir.'' for Iridium; ``Pd.''
for Palladium; ``Ru.'' for Ruthenium; ``Rh.'' for Rhodium; and ``Os.''
for Osmium.
(2) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per
thousand pure Platinum may be marked ``Platinum.''
(3) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per
thousand PGM, of which at least 750 parts per thousand are pure
Platinum, may be marked ``Platinum'' provided that the name or
abbreviation of the PGM member that is the next largest constituent of
the alloy immediately precedes the word ``Platinum.''
(4) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per
thousand PGM, of which at least 500 parts per thousand (but less than
750) are pure Platinum, may be marked ``Platinum'' provided that the
mark of each PGM constituent is preceded by a number indicating the
amount in parts per thousand of each PGM, as, for example, ``600 Plat.-
350 Irid.,'' ``700 Platinum-250 Iridium,'' or ``500 Pt.-250 Pd.-200
Ir.''
(5) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per
thousand PGM, of which less than 500 parts per thousand are pure
Platinum, may be marked with the name or abbreviation of the PGM member
that predominates in the product, provided that the mark is preceded by
a number indicating the amount in parts per thousand of the PGM. Such
product should not be marked with the name or abbreviation for
platinum.
(6) Chain articles containing solder-filled wire and consisting of
at least 850 parts per thousand pure Platinum may be marked
``Platinum.''
Note to Sec. 23.7: Exemptions recognized in the assay of
platinum industry products are listed in the Appendix to Part 23.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix--List of Commenters and Abbreviations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviation No. Commenter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArtCarved........................... 155 ArtCarved.
Bales............................... 156 Bales Diamond Center & Mfg.
Inc.
Bridge.............................. 163 Ben Bridge.
Bruce............................... 218 Donald Bruce & Co.
Canada.............................. 209 Consumer & Corporate
Affairs Canada.
Estate.............................. 23 Estate Jewelers.
Fasnacht............................ 4 Fasnacht's Jewelry.
G&B................................. 30 Gudmundson & Buyck
Jewelers.
Handy............................... 62 Handy & Harman.
IJA................................. 192 Indiana Jewelers
Association.
Jabel............................... 47 Jabel Inc.
JCWA................................ 216 Japan Clock & Watch
Association.
King................................ 11 King's Jewelry.
Korbelak............................ 27 A. Korbelak.
Leach............................... 257 Leach & Garner Co.
Matthey............................. 213 Johnson Matthey.
McGee............................... 112 McGee & Co.
MJSA................................ 226 Manufacturing Jewelers &
Silversmiths of America,
Inc.
PGI................................. 245 Platinum Guild Int'l U.S.A.
Jewelry, Inc.
[[Page 27228]]
Phillips............................ 204 Phillips Jewelers, Inc.
Preston............................. 229 F.J. Preston & Son Inc.
Schwartz............................ 52 Charles Schwartz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-13522 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P