Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81443 

1The Platinum Group Metals are platinum, 

iridium, palladium, ruthenium, rhodium, and 

osmium. 16 CFR 23.7(a). 

Airport and cancellation of all Standard 

Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) 

has eliminated the need for controlled 

airspace in the Lone Star, TX, area. The 

FAA is taking this action to ensure the 

efficient use of airspace within the 

National Airspace System. 

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, March 

10, 2011. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 

Order 7400.9 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Enander, Central Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 

Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321– 

7716. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On October 21, 2010, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of proposed rulemaking to 

remove Class E airspace for Lone Star, 

TX. (75 FR 64972) Docket No. FAA– 

2010–0772. Interested parties were 

invited to participate in this rulemaking 

effort by submitting written comments 

on the proposal to the FAA. No 

comments were received. Class E 

airspace designations are published in 

paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U 

dated August 18, 2010, and effective 

September 15, 2010, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designations 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

The Rule 

This action amends Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by 

removing the Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface 

at the former Lone Star Steel Company 

Airport, Lone Star, TX. The airport has 

been abandoned and all SIAPs have 

been cancelled, therefore, controlled 

airspace is no longer needed for the 

safety and management of IFR 

operations. 

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. Therefore, this regulation: (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. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart 

I, section 40103. Under that section, the 

FAA is charged with prescribing 

regulations to assign the use of airspace 

necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft 

and the efficient use of airspace. This 

regulation is within the scope of that 

authority as it removes controlled 

airspace at the former Lone Star Steel 

Company Airport, Lone Star, TX. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (Air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

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

40120; E. O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9U, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 18, 2010, and 

effective September 15, 2010, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface. 

* * * * * 

ASW TX E5 Lone Star, TX [Removed] 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 

15, 2010. 

Walter L. Tweedy, 

Acting Manager Operations Support Group, 

ATO Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32572 Filed 12–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 23 

Guides for the Jewelry, Precious 

Metals, and Pewter Industries 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Final Guides Amendments. 

SUMMARY: The Commission announces 

amendments to the FTC’s Guides for the 

Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter 

Industries. The amendments in 

particular provide guidance on how to 

mark and describe non-deceptively an 

alloy of platinum and non-precious 

metals, consisting of at least 500 parts 

per thousand, but less than 850 parts 

per thousand, pure platinum and less 

than 950 parts per thousand total 

platinum group metals. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 28, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin Rosen Spector, Attorney, (202) 

326–3740, Division of Enforcement, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, or 

Janice Podoll Frankle, Attorney, (202) 

326–3022, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Trade Commission, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to public comments and consumer 

survey evidence submitted in response 

to two Federal Register Notices, the 

FTC amends the Platinum Group Metals 

Section (hereinafter ‘‘Platinum Section’’) 

of the Commission’s Guides for the 

Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter 

Industries (‘‘Jewelry Guides’’ or 

‘‘Guides’’), 16 CFR 23.7, and also 

amends the Scope and Application 

Section of the Guides, 16 CFR 23.0. The 

amendments to the Platinum Section 

provide that marketers may nondeceptively mark and describe 

‘‘platinum/base metal alloys,’’ those 

containing at least 500 parts per 

thousand (‘‘ppt’’), but less than 850 ppt, 

pure platinum and less than 950 ppt 

total platinum group metals (‘‘PGM’’) as 

‘‘platinum’’ using certain disclosures.1 In 

supporting this conclusion, the 

following Federal Register Notice 

provides background information; 

summarizes the record established by 

the public comments; analyzes this 

record based on the applicable 

Commission standard; and sets forth the 

text of the amendments to the Platinum 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
81444 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2The Commission is adding two new paragraphs 

to Section 23.0 to clarify the scope and application 

of the Jewelry Guides. This does not represent a 

change in Commission law or policy. 

3On April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16669), the Commission 

published the current Platinum Section. The 

Commission revised this section as part of its most 

recent comprehensive review of the Guides. 

4 16 CFR 23.7(a). 

5These examples provide that it may be 

misleading: (1) To describe a product with less than 

950 ppt pure platinum as ‘‘platinum’’ without 

qualification; (2) to describe a product with less 

than 850 ppt, but more than 500 ppt, pure platinum 

as ‘‘platinum’’ without qualifying the representation 

with a disclosure identifying the ppt of pure 

platinum and the ppt of other platinum group 

metals contained in the product; (3) to use the word 

‘‘platinum’’ or any abbreviation to mark or describe 

any product that contains less than 500 ppt pure 

platinum. 16 CFR 23.7(b). 

6The request for a staff opinion and the staff’s 

response to that request are located at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/jewelry/letters/ 

karatplatinum.pdf and http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

statutes/jewelry/letters/karatplatinum002.pdf, 

respectively. The staff letter stated that ‘‘this alloy 

[is] sufficiently different in composition from 

products consisting of platinum and other PGM as 

to require clear and conspicuous disclosure of the 

differences.’’ The staff letter also explained that it 

did not appear ‘‘that simple stamping of the 

jewelry’s content (e.g., 585 Plat., 0 PGM) would be 

sufficient to alert consumers to the differences 

between the Karat Platinum alloy and platinum 

products containing other PGM.’’ 

7 70 FR 38834 (July 6, 2005). 

8 73 FR 22848 (Apr. 28, 2008). 

9The Commission’s summary and analysis of the 

2005 FRN comments is detailed in the 2008 FRN, 

73 FR 10190 (Feb. 26, 2008). The 62 comments to 

the 2005 FRN are posted at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

comments/jewelryplatinum/index.shtm. 

10Currently the Guides specifically address the 

marketing of products containing: (1) At least 85% 

platinum; or (2) at least 50% and less than 85% 

platinum, and at least 95% total PGM. 11See, e.g., JVC Comment 2005 at 4, 7–8; PGI 

Comment 2005 at 16–19. 12PGI Comment 2005, Attachment A. The 

Maronick study title is ‘‘Platinum Awareness Study: 

An Empirical Analysis of Consumers’ Perceptions 

of Platinum as an Option in Engagement Ring 

Settings.’’ 

13 Id., Attachment B. 

14 Id. at 3, and Attachments C and D. 

15 Id., Attachment A. These attributes included 

the product’s weight, durability, scratch and tarnish 

resistance, and whether it was hypoallergenic and 

could be resized. 

16Higher purity platinum or platinum/other PGM 

products include those containing at least 850 ppt 

platinum, or at least 500 ppt platinum and at least 

950 ppt PGM. 

17 It does not appear that the PGI tests evaluated 

a product identical in composition to the Karat 

Platinum platinum/base metal alloy. 

Section and to the Scope and 

Application Section of the Guides. 

I. Background 

A. The Platinum Section of the Jewelry 

Guides 

The Commission issued the Jewelry 

Guides to help marketers avoid making 

jewelry claims that are unfair or 

deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. Industry guides, such 

as these, are administrative 

interpretations of the law. Therefore, 

they do not have the force of law and 

are not independently enforceable. The 

Commission can take action under the 

FTC Act, however, if a business makes 

marketing claims inconsistent with the 

Guides. In any such enforcement action, 

the Commission must prove that the act 

or practice at issue is unfair or deceptive 

in violation of Section 5 of the FTC 

Act.2

To help marketers avoid unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in 

connection with the sale of platinum, 

the Platinum Section contains a general 

statement regarding the deceptive use of 

the term ‘‘platinum’’ (and the names of 

other PGM) and provides examples of 

potentially misleading and nonviolative uses of the term ‘‘platinum.’’ 3

Specifically, Section 7(a) states: 

It is unfair or deceptive to use the words 

‘‘platinum,’’ ‘‘iridium,’’ ‘‘palladium,’’ 

‘‘ruthenium,’’ ‘‘rhodium,’’ and ‘‘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.4

Section 7(b) provides three examples of 

markings or descriptions for products 

containing platinum that may be 

misleading.5 Section 7(c) provides four 

examples not considered unfair or 

deceptive. 

B. Procedural History 

On December 15, 2004, Karat 

Platinum, a jewelry manufacturer, 

requested an FTC staff opinion 

regarding the application of the 

Platinum Section to a new product 

consisting of 585 ppt platinum and 415 

ppt copper and cobalt (non-precious 

metals). The request stated that the 

company believed that the Platinum 

Section did not prohibit marking or 

describing the product as ‘‘platinum,’’ or 

address how to mark or describe the 

product other than to prohibit 

misrepresentations. The staff responded 

on February 2, 2005, agreeing that the 

Guides did not address the marketing of 

this product, and providing guidance.6

Because of the public interest in this 

issue, the Commission published a 

Federal Register Notice (‘‘2005 FRN’’) 7

soliciting public comment regarding 

whether it should revise the Guides to 

address this new product. The 

Commission also sought comment 

regarding whether the Guides should 

address how to mark or describe nondeceptively platinum-clad, filled, 

coated, or overlay jewelry products. 

Based on the 2005 FRN comments 

and consumer survey evidence, the 

Commission issued a Federal Register 

Notice in 2008 (‘‘2008 FRN’’) soliciting 

comment on a proposed amendment to 

the Platinum Section to address these 

issues. Prior to the close of the comment 

period on May 27, 2008, the Platinum 

Guild International (‘‘PGI’’) and the 

Jewelers’ Vigilance Committee (‘‘JVC’’) 

requested a 90-day extension. The 

Commission extended the comment 

period until August 25, 2008.8

C. The 2005 FRN Comments 

The vast majority of the 62 responsive 

comments 9 recommended that the 

Commission revise the Platinum Section 

to include guidance for platinum/base 

metal alloy jewelry. These commenters 

further recommended that the 

Commission provide that marking or 

describing platinum/base metal alloy 

jewelry as ‘‘platinum’’ is deceptive. The 

commenters asserted that platinum 

jewelry has always been produced as 

nearly pure or combined with other 

PGM (hereafter ‘‘platinum/PGM’’),10 and 

that platinum/base metal alloys do not 

share the same characteristics as these 

products.11 Karat Platinum disagreed 

that the use of the term ‘‘platinum’’ to 

describe platinum/base metal alloys is 

deceptive. 

The 2005 record included consumer 

perception studies and product testing. 

PGI submitted a study it commissioned 

from Dr. Thomas J. Maronick, (‘‘2005 

Platinum Awareness Study’’),12 a 2003 

marketing survey conducted by Hall & 

Partners,13 and two tests evaluating 

platinum/base metal alloys.14 The 2005 

Platinum Awareness Study found that 

39.5% of consumers believe that 

products marked or described as 

‘‘platinum’’ are pure or nearly pure and 

that certain qualities or attributes 

typically associated with platinum are 

important to a substantial number of 

consumers.15 The study also found that 

a majority of consumers would not 

expect platinum/base metal alloys 

containing more than 40% base metal to 

be called ‘‘platinum’’ if they do not 

possess the attributes present in higher 

purity platinum or platinum/other PGM 

products.16 In addition, the study 

showed that the majority of consumers 

do not fully understand numeric jewelry 

markings, particularly those using 

chemical abbreviations, such as 585 Pt./ 

415 Co.Cu. The PGI product tests 

indicated that certain platinum/base 

metal alloys are inferior to higher purity 

platinum jewelry in terms of wear and 

oxidation resistance, as well as weight 

loss, and that they cannot be resized 

using certain procedures.17 Karat 

Platinum submitted a test of its alloy 

which suggested that the alloy is 

superior or equivalent to higher purity 

platinum jewelry in several respects, but 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81445 

18 73 FR 10190 (Feb. 26, 2008). 

19 Id. at 10196–10197. 

20The 58 comments can be found at: http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/comments/jewelryplatinum2/ 

index.shtm. 

21 JVC submitted its comment on behalf of JVC, 

the Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of 

America, the Jewelers of America, and the 

American Gem Society. 

22See JVC Comment at 2; PGI Comment at 2–3. 

23 Dr. Thomas J. Maronick conducted both 

studies. The title of the 2008 Attitude Study is: 

‘‘Platinum Attitude Study: Four Empirical Studies 

of Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Platinum and 

Substitutes as Options in Engagement Ring 

Settings.’’ 

24PGI Comment at 10–11. PGI’s consumer 

surveys asked consumers whether they would 

expect products described with these terms to 

possess the attributes of higher purity platinum/ 

other PGM products. PGI Comment, Attachment A, 

2008 Platinum Attitude Study 2 at 1–4. The survey 

found: Karat Platinum: Definitely Yes, 18%; 

Probably Yes, 42%; Maybe, 21%; Platinum Alloy: 

Definitely Yes, 6%; Probably Yes, 18%; Maybe, 

24%; Platinum Five: Definitely Yes, 8%; Probably 

Yes, 23%; Maybe, 36%; Platinum V: Definitely Yes, 

8%; Probably Yes, 25%; Maybe, 33%; Platifina: 

Definitely Yes, 3%; Probably Yes, 8%; Maybe, 22%; 

Palarium: Definitely Yes, 4%; Probably Yes, 8%; 

Maybe, 19%. 

25PGI Comment at 3. See also Tiffany & Co. 

Comment (stating that consumers expect a product 

labeled ‘‘platinum’’ to contain an industry standard 

metal of 500 ppt pure platinum with 950 total 

PGM); Lowell Kwiat Comment (explaining that 

today’s platinum is generally 95% pure); Gaetano 

Cavalieri Comment (noting that the industry 

standard practice for generations has restricted 

platinum to alloys containing no fewer than 850 ppt 

pure platinum); Richard Frank Comment 

(commenting that platinum has traditionally been 

90% platinum, 10% iridium); William Holland 

Comment (noting that platinum jewelry has always 

been known to be 90% pure or higher); Joseph 

Klein Comment (platinum was never less than 85% 

pure under any definition); Charles Wallace 

Comment (‘‘[p]latinum has forever been sold as an 

item of purity and should remain so.’’). 

26See PGI Comment at 2, 12, 26–28, 34–35; JVC 

Comment at 2–3, 6–7, 14, 18. 

27Tiffany Comment at 3. Kwiat agreed, stating 

that marketers should call consumers’ attention to 

this ‘‘new innovation’’ by giving it ‘‘a different name 

which reflects the fact that it is different than what 

has been customary.’’ Lowell Kwiat Comment at 2. 

28See, e.g., Birks & Mayors, Inc. Comment; Ben 

Bridge Jeweler Comment; Joseph Cresalia Comment. 

29 Karat Platinum Comment at 6–8. 

is less dense than higher purity 

platinum jewelry. Karat Platinum did 

not test whether its alloy is 

hypoallergenic. 

Several comments also suggested that 

the Commission provide guidance on 

how to describe platinum-clad, filled, 

plated, or overlay products, but most 

did not discuss what guidance the 

Commission should provide. 

II. The 2008 FRN and Comments 

A. The 2008 FRN 

Based on the 2005 FRN record, the 

Commission issued a 2008 FRN 

soliciting comment on a proposed 

revision to the Platinum Section to 

address the marketing of platinum/base 

metal alloys.18 The Commission 

explained that the record supported the 

conclusion that a substantial number of 

consumers believed products marked or 

described as ‘‘platinum’’ are nearly pure 

and possess certain desirable qualities 

that some platinum/base metal alloys 

may not possess. In addition, the 

Commission stated that the record 

indicated that if a description of a 

platinum/base metal alloy as ‘‘platinum’’ 

is qualified only with a content 

disclosure using numbers and chemical 

abbreviations, consumers likely would 

not understand the disclosure. However, 

there was no evidence that a more 

descriptive disclosure would not 

adequately qualify the claim. The 

Commission, therefore, proposed 

specific qualifying disclosures.19

The Commission’s proposal provided 

that marketers may physically mark or 

stamp a platinum/base metal alloy 

jewelry article with the product’s 

chemical composition (e.g., 585 Pt./215 

Co./200 Cu.), but that when making any 

other representation that the product 

contains platinum, marketers should 

clearly and conspicuously disclose, 

immediately following the name or 

description of the product: 

(1) That the product contains 

platinum and other non-platinum group 

metals; 

(2) The product’s full composition, by 

name and not abbreviation, and the 

percentage of each metal; and 

(3) That the product may not have the 

same attributes or properties as products 

containing at least 850 ppt pure 

platinum, or at least 500 ppt pure 

platinum and at least 950 ppt PGM. 

The proposed amendment also included 

a substantiation provision that allowed 

marketers to forgo the third disclosure if 

they had competent and reliable 

scientific evidence that, with respect to 

all attributes material to consumers (e.g., 

the product’s durability, 

hypoallergenicity, resistance to 

tarnishing and scratching, and the 

ability to resize or repair the product), 

their product is equivalent to products 

containing at least 850 ppt pure 

platinum, or at least 500 ppt pure 

platinum and at least 950 ppt PGM. 

In the 2008 FRN, the Commission 

again sought comment whether it 

should revise the Platinum Section to 

address platinum-clad, filled, plated, or 

overlay products and, if so, how. 

B. Summary of the Comments 

In response, the Commission received 

58 comments.20 Most were short 

without detailed discussion. However, 

Karat Platinum; JVC, on behalf of 

several industry associations; 21 and PGI 

submitted detailed comments. The JVC 

and PGI comments included survey 

evidence. 

We summarize the comments and 

survey evidence below addressing: (1) 

Use of the word ‘‘platinum’’ to describe 

platinum/base metal alloys; (2) the 

Commission’s proposed disclosures; (3) 

harmonization with international 

standards; (4) the commenters’ proposed 

amendments to the Guides; and (5) 

guidance regarding platinum-clad, 

filled, plated, or overlay jewelry. 

1. Use of the Word ‘‘Platinum’’ 

Many commenters asserted that use of 

the term ‘‘platinum’’ to describe a 

platinum/base metal alloy would 

deceive consumers in a manner that 

could not be remedied with 

disclosures.22 Most made this assertion 

without supporting evidence. JVC and 

PGI, however, relied on the findings 

from PGI’s 2005 Platinum Awareness 

Study and provided 2008 survey 

evidence (‘‘2008 Platinum Attitude 

Study’’).23 Specifically, PGI pointed to 

the 2008 survey’s findings that 

consumers expect products marked or 

described as ‘‘platinum’’ to be nearly 

pure and that products with ‘‘platinum,’’ 

in their name, such as ‘‘Karat Platinum,’’ 

‘‘Platinum Five,’’ or ‘‘Platinum V,’’ 

confuse or mislead consumers 

concerning the products’ metal content 

and attributes.24 PGI argued that 

because of these perceptions, it is 

inherently misleading to refer to 

platinum/base metal alloys as 

‘‘platinum,’’ and the deception cannot be 

cured by qualifying language.25

Therefore, JVC and PGI asserted that 

marketers should describe platinum/ 

base metal alloys using a name that does 

not include ‘‘platinum’’ or ‘‘plat,’’ so 

consumers will not be confused or 

misled about the alloy’s contents or 

attributes.26 Tiffany & Co. (‘‘Tiffany’’) 

agreed, suggesting that platinum/base 

metal alloys should be ‘‘creatively and 

individually named by the 

manufacturer.’’ 27 Several other 

commenters recommended that the FTC 

‘‘consider a new and different name’’ for 

the alloy but did not propose a 

particular name.28

Karat Platinum disagreed, arguing that 

the term ‘‘platinum’’ can be qualified 

sufficiently so that consumers 

understand that a product is not pure 

platinum.29 Karat Platinum, however, 

did not submit any survey evidence. 

2. The Commission’s Proposed 

Disclosures 

JVC and PGI asserted that the 

Commission’s three proposed 

disclosures were confusing, inadequate, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
81446 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

30PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum 

Attitude Study 4 at 1–2. In addition, 26% stated 

they were not sure what ‘‘other non-platinum group 

metals’’ were. 

31 Id. at 2. Respondents were asked whether they 

understood the phrase ‘‘other non-platinum group 

metals’’ and then were given a list of metals and 

asked if any of them were ‘‘other non-platinum 

group metals.’’ In response to the follow-up, 29% 

of respondents stated that palladium was an ‘‘other 

non-platinum group metal;’’ 61% said they were not 

sure; and 11% said no. Palladium is a platinum 

group metal. Similarly, 39% stated copper was an 

‘‘other non-platinum group metal;’’ 47% stated they 

were not sure; and 13% said no. Copper is a nonplatinum group metal. Id. 

32See Karat Platinum Comment at 6. 

33See JVC Comment at 8. See PGI Comment, 

Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study 3 at 

2. By contrast, when asked if consumers knew what 

585Pt.415Co.Cu. meant 81% said no, 13% said yes, 

and 7% said they were not sure. Id. at 1. 

34 JVC Comment at 8. 35PGI Comment at 4. 36Tiffany Comment at 2. 37 Karat Platinum Comment at 6. 38 Id. 39 Id. 40 Karat Platinum Comment at 6–7. 41 Id. at 6. 

42 Id. at 7. 

43 73 FR 10190, 10197. 

44PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum 

Attitude Study 1 at 3. 

45 JVC Comment at 11. 

46 Id. 

and unworkable. Karat Platinum 

disagreed, but suggested some revisions 

to the third disclosure and asserted that 

marketers of higher purity platinum or 

platinum/PGM jewelry should be 

subject to the proposed second and 

third disclosures. Below, we discuss the 

three proposed disclosures. 

(a) First Proposed Disclosure 

The first proposed disclosure 

provided that marketers of platinum/ 

base metal alloys state that their product 

‘‘contains platinum and other nonplatinum group metals.’’ Several 

commenters argued that this disclosure 

will confuse consumers. For example, 

54% of consumers surveyed in the 2008 

Platinum Attitude Study did not know 

what the phrase ‘‘other non-platinum 

group metals’’ meant.30 PGI further 

stated that when the survey asked 

consumers to classify metals as 

platinum or non-platinum group, they 

were largely unable to do so correctly.31

Karat Platinum, by contrast, commented 

that this disclosure would provide 

useful information to consumers about 

the product.32

(b) Second Proposed Disclosure 

The Commission’s second proposed 

disclosure provided that marketers list 

the full composition of the product (by 

name and not abbreviation) and the 

percentage of each metal. JVC and PGI 

asserted that consumers will not 

comprehend this disclosure. In support 

of this position, JVC cited the 2008 

Platinum Attitude Study. Specifically, 

when consumers were asked whether 

they understood the meaning of ‘‘58.5% 

Platinum and 41.5% Copper/Cobalt,’’ 

55% said yes, 33% stated that they did 

not know, and 12% stated that they 

were not sure.33 Moreover, JVC opined 

that because consumers will not 

understand the disclosure, they will 

focus only on the term ‘‘platinum’’ and 

believe that the product is the 

equivalent of platinum products that are 

at least 85% platinum.34 PGI added that 

listing the percentages of each metal 

still may not alert consumers of the 

differences between ‘‘diluted’’ platinum 

alloys and higher purity products.35

Tiffany agreed and asserted that 

disclosing each alloying component in 

full without abbreviation would not 

achieve consumer knowledge. Tiffany 

noted that research has shown that 

consumers do not understand metal 

content disclosures. Thus, it contended 

that ‘‘disclosing that the ‘platinum’ piece 

has a certain percentage of copper * * * 

is not instructive.’’ 36

In contrast, Karat Platinum asserted 

that disclosing the composition of 

platinum/base metal alloys using the 

full names and percentages of the 

constituent metals is a good practice.37

It explained that the Commission’s 

proposed disclosures—that the product 

contains platinum and other nonplatinum group metals and the full 

names and percentage of the metals— 

‘‘provides the greatest likelihood of 

effectively conveying information to 

consumers.’’ 38 However, it noted that 

marketers of ‘‘high grade and platinum/ 

PGM’’ do not have to disclose their 

products’ full composition.39 Karat 

Platinum asserted that the Commission 

should remedy this inconsistency and 

modify the second proposed disclosure 

to provide that all marketers of platinum 

products make full compositional 

disclosures.40

Karat Platinum opined that full 

compositional disclosure for all 

platinum products would benefit 

consumers in at least two ways. First, it 

asserted that it is a ‘‘myth’’ that 

platinum/PGM products are composed 

of an industry-standard material. It 

noted that high-grade platinum products 

may have ‘‘dramatically different’’ 

characteristics. For example, it 

compared two platinum rings, one 

containing 95% platinum and 5% 

ruthenium with another containing 95% 

platinum and 5% iridium. It stated that 

the former product is ‘‘significantly 

more scratch resistant and durable.’’ 41

Second, Karat Platinum explained that 

certain marketers ‘‘have engaged in the 

long-standing practice of characterizing 

high-grade and platinum/PGM alloys as 

‘pure’ platinum’’ when the products all 

contain less than 100% platinum.42

Karat Platinum, however, did not 

submit any consumer perception 

evidence indicating that the current 

marketing for higher purity platinum/ 

other PGM products misleads 

consumers. 

(c) Third Proposed Disclosure 

The Commission’s third proposed 

disclosure provided that marketers 

disclose ‘‘that the product may not have 

the same attributes as products 

containing at least 850 parts per 

thousand pure Platinum, or at least 500 

parts per thousand pure Platinum and at 

least 950 parts per thousand PGM.’’ 43

The proposed amendment further 

provided that a marketer need not make 

this third disclosure ‘‘if the marketer has 

competent and reliable scientific 

evidence that, with respect to all 

attributes material to consumers * * * 

such product is equivalent to [higher 

purity platinum/other PGM] products.’’ 

Many commenters asserted that this 

disclosure is confusing and unworkable. 

(i) The Disclosure Is Confusing 

Several commenters asserted that the 

third disclosure is confusing because it 

does not require that marketers specify 

the attributes of platinum/base metal 

alloys that differ from platinum/PGM 

products or explain how the alloy 

differs with respect to these attributes. 

The 2008 Platinum Attitude Study 

asked consumers about eight separate 

product attributes of platinum/base 

metal engagement rings: durability, 

luster, density, scratch resistance, 

tarnish resistance, ability to be resized 

or repaired, hypoallergenicity, and the 

retention of precious metal content over 

time. From 40% to 80% of consumers 

surveyed (depending on the product 

property) would expect a salesperson to 

inform them about these attributes and 

would also want the information 

physically attached to the product.44

JVC asserted that these results 

demonstrate that the proposed 

disclosure ‘‘will not impart any of the 

information consumers want and 

need.’’ 45 The 2008 survey, however, did 

not evaluate consumer understanding of 

the third proposed disclosure. 

JVC asserted that ‘‘[t]o make this 

disclosure fair and complete, full 

disclosure about each of the eight 

important attributes * * * would be 

required.’’46 JVC explained: ‘‘[a] 

consumer could easily purchase a 

[platinum/base metal alloy] ring without 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81447 

47 Id. at 10–11. 

48See, e.g., Anne Howitt Comment; Michael 

Kranish Comment. 

49Tiffany Comment at 4. 

50 JVC Comment at 12; PGI Comment at 11. 

51 JVC Comment at 11–12; PGI Comment at 4. 

52 JVC Comment at 12–13. 

53 Id. Similarly, a jeweler commented that it is 

unrealistic for the public to depend on retail sales 

personnel to accurately disclose and explain the 

differences between platinum/PGM products and 

the platinum/base metal alloy. This jeweler stated 

that the reality of the marketplace is that sales 

personnel are unlikely to explain jewelry 

specifications unless they are specifically asked. 

Lowell Kwiat Comment at 1. 

54 JVC Comment at 12. 

55PGI Comment at 4. 

56 JVC Comment at 12–13; Attachment Six A. 

57 Id. at 13. 

58 Id. at 12–13. 

59 Id. at 13. 

60Steven DiFranco Comment. See also Anne 

Howitt Comment; Peter LeCody Comment. 

61Lowell Kwiat Comment at 1. 

62 Karat Platinum Comment at 5. 

63 Id. 

64Hoover & Strong Comment. Hoover & Strong is 

a wholesale jewelry manufacturer. 

65The five attributes in the proposed amendment 

are: durability, hypoallergenicity, resistance to 

tarnishing, resistance to scratching, and the ability 

to re-size or repair the product. 

66 JVC Comment at 9; PGI Comment at 4. 

67 JVC Comment at 9. 

68 Id. 

69PGI Comment at 4. 

70 Karat Platinum Comment at 4. 

understanding that it might not hold a 

diamond as well, or might tarnish, or 

may not be hypoallergenic.’’47 Other 

commenters expressed similar 

concerns.48

Tiffany, for example, explained that 

‘‘[o]ur experience has shown that 

consumers who are in the process of 

buying a platinum product, feel as 

though they understand the product’s 

makeup (platinum is pure) and 

characteristics (hypoallergenicity and 

others) and are there (typically in a 

rush) to decide based on issues such as 

style and fit, not a chemistry discussion 

of alloy makeup.’’ 49 Tiffany opined that 

this disclosure, combined with the 

second, full composition disclosure, 

will baffle and frustrate consumers, 

potentially causing them to walk away 

from the sale. 

(ii) The Disclosure Is Unworkable 

The comments further asserted that 

marketers cannot realistically deliver 

the third proposed disclosure. 

Specifically, JVC and PGI contended 

that the 2008 Platinum Attitude Study 

found that consumers expect jewelry 

information to be physically attached to 

the product.50 However, both JVC and 

PGI asserted that the volume of 

information included in the disclosure, 

combined with the first and second 

proposed disclosures, cannot be 

attached to the jewelry itself, or on a 

small tag affixed to the jewelry.51 JVC 

further stated that if the third proposed 

disclosure is revised to include 

additional information necessary to 

fully inform consumers, this additional 

information will make attachment to 

jewelry more difficult.52 Therefore, JVC 

noted, jewelry sales personnel will need 

to orally disclose the information, or 

provide it in writing with the purchase. 

Several commenters asserted that 

reliance on the salesperson or on 

written information delivered with the 

purchase is problematic. JVC opined 

that the average jewelry salesperson 

would be hard pressed to deliver this 

information.53 It further asserted that 

the jewelry retail sales force is not 

equipped to discuss this complex 

metallurgical disclosure and simply will 

not provide the information, or will 

provide incorrect information.54 PGI 

noted that it would be difficult, if not 

impossible, to ensure that the sales 

personnel impart correct information 

comparing all of the differences between 

a multitude of new alloys.55

In addition, JVC submitted a Jewelers 

of America (‘‘JA’’) study that asked JA 

members about the ‘‘realities’’ of selling 

jewelry. The JA study, in part, found 

that 57.4% of the respondents said that 

it would be ‘‘difficult’’ or ‘‘very difficult’’ 

to tell consumers that the jewelry may 

not have the attributes of higher purity 

platinum products and to explain those 

differences.56 JVC asserted that such 

technical disclosures—spoken or 

written—at the point of sale are likely 

to have a ‘‘chilling’’ effect and that 

consumers ‘‘may very well walk away 

from any product that requires these 

confusing, lengthy and unappealing 

disclosures.’’ 57

Moreover, JVC explained that nearly 

half of the respondents to the JA study 

stated that attribute disclosures could 

not be attached to the jewelry in the 

form of a tag or other physical means.58

Several commenters concurred, 

asserting that without physical 

attachment, the disclosures likely will 

not remain with the jewelry product 

over time. JVC explained that the 

jewelry could be re-sold, repaired, or 

appraised without any identification of 

the alloy.59 It asserted that a jeweler 

repairing a platinum/base metal alloy 

might not know the contents and this 

could create the risk that the item will 

be damaged during the repair process. A 

jewelry repair dealer expressed similar 

concern, explaining: ‘‘it will be virtually 

impossible for any jewelry repair 

technician to properly repair or size 

* * * jewelry under the new 

proposal.’’ 60 Another commenter 

opined that, short of an assay of the 

jewelry piece, the platinum/base alloy 

product distinctions ‘‘will not be 

discernible even to the well trained 

professional.’’ 61

In contrast, Karat Platinum asserted 

that the proposed disclosures do not 

need to include more detailed 

information or be physically attached to 

the platinum/base metal alloy products. 

It suggested that marketers’ inclusion of 

the proposed disclosures with the 

marketing materials ‘‘is more than 

sufficient to ensure that the information 

is available to consumers.’’ 62 It further 

opined that, by making marketing 

material available, consumers are 

‘‘provided with sufficient information to 

put them in a position to inquire from 

their jewelers, or from other 

knowledgeable sources, such as a 

company’s marketing information, Web 

site, or the Internet, as to the relative 

value, properties, and characteristics of 

a product.’’ 63 Similarly, another 

commenter stated that the point of sale 

is the ideal way to inform consumers of 

the platinum/base metal alloy content.64

(d) The Substantiation Provision 

Many commenters asserted that the 

substantiation provision that allows 

marketers to avoid making the third 

disclosure is inadequate and 

unworkable because it is too vague and 

gives marketers too much discretion. 

JVC and PGI explained that, even 

though the proposed amendment lists 

five important attributes as examples,65

the seller self-determines which product 

attributes are material.66 JVC asserted 

that a disclosure that relies on a 

subjective standard presents endless 

possibilities for non-compliance.67

Moreover, JVC explained that because 

‘‘there are no industry-wide, universallyaccepted testing methods that produce 

‘competent and reliable’ evidence,’’ 

there is no standard for testing these 

attributes.68 PGI similarly noted that 

marketers are inappropriately left to 

their own devices to ‘‘cherry pick’’ 

which tests they should conduct to selfdetermine that they are exempt from 

making a particular disclosure.69

Karat Platinum raised three concerns 

with the adequacy of the platinum 

attributes listed in the provision. First, 

it explained that the five attributes 

listed in the provision do not include all 

the attributes that the 2005 Platinum 

Awareness Study identified as 

important to the greatest number of 

consumers.70 For example, in that study 

a substantial majority of consumers 

indicated they would want to know the 

weight of a product setting, yet that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
81448 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

71 Id. at 5. 

72 Id. 

73 Id. 

74See, e.g., JVC Comment at 14–18; PGI Comment 

at 5, 18–20; Ben Bridge Jeweler Comment; Birks & 

Mayors Comment; Gaetano Cavalieri Comment at 1– 

3; Joseph Cresalia Comment; Shannon Daly 

Comment; Tiffany Comment at 1–2; Anne Howitt 

Comment; Norie Jenkins Comment; Annette Kinzie 

Comment; Robert McGee Comment; Mark Noelke 

Comment; Elizabeth Parker Comment; M. Strutz 

Comment; Craig Warburton Comment. 

75 JVC Comment at 14–18. JVC explained that the 

ISO and CIBJO standards restrict the use of the 

word ‘‘platinum’’ to platinum/PGM alloys. Id. at 16– 

17. 

76 JVC explained that England, France, Germany, 

and Switzerland are hallmarking countries. Id. at 

15, n.22. 

77 Id. at 18. 

78Tiffany Comment at 1. 

79 JVC Comment at 2–3, Attachment One at 2. 

80 Karat Platinum Comment at 3–4. 

81Michelle Broyles Comment; Don Broyles 

Comment; Walter Hardin Comment; Vickie Martin 

Comment; Robert Pate Comment; Randall Sims 

Comment. 

82 JVC Comment at 26–27. JVC commented that 

because there is no indication that marketers are 

selling platinum-filled or platinum-clad items, the 

Guides do not need to address those products. Id. 

83 Id. Attachment Three, which contains a 

comment by Michael A. Akkaoui from Tanury 

Industries, regarding platinum plating, is in accord 

with JVC’s comment. 

84See 16 CFR 1.5. The purpose of the Guides is 

to prevent deception, not to codify the rules set by 

standard setting bodies. See id. §§ 1.5–1.6. 

characteristic was not included 

explicitly in the third proposed 

disclosure. Second, Karat Platinum 

noted that because Dr. Maronick preselected the attributes, the participants 

had no choice in deciding which 

characteristics were important. Third, it 

asserted that when participants were 

allowed to write in the characteristics 

important to them they ‘‘indicated that 

they would want to know ‘everything’ 

about the platinum product.’’ 71 Thus, 

Karat Platinum recommended the 

Commission ‘‘conduct independent fact 

finding to determine what properties are 

material to consumers.’’ 72

In addition, Karat Platinum 

contended that the Commission should 

provide that all marketers of platinum 

products—not just those marketing 

platinum/base metal alloys—‘‘maintain 

evidence that their product meets those 

expectations,’’ or alert consumers that 

they do not.73

3. Harmonization with International 

Standards 

JVC, PGI, and numerous other 

commenters asserted that the 

Commission’s proposal is not in 

harmony with international standards 

and will impede foreign commerce.74

JVC explained that products made of 

platinum/base metal alloys cannot be 

sold as ‘‘platinum’’ in foreign 

jurisdictions that have adopted 

standards promulgated by the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (‘‘ISO’’) or the World 

Jewellery Confederation (‘‘CIBJO’’).75

Moreover, JVC noted that platinum/base 

metal alloys could not be sold as 

‘‘platinum’’ products in ‘‘hallmarking’’ 

countries—those that require that 

precious metal jewelry (including 

platinum) be stamped by approved 

assaying guilds before they are sold— 

because they contain base metals.76

Thus, JVC opined that if platinum/base 

metal alloy products are marketed as 

‘‘platinum’’ in the U.S., it ‘‘will 

undermine the international perception 

of U.S.-made products, threatening the 

integrity of the entire U.S.-platinum 

jewelry market abroad.’’ 77 Tiffany 

agreed, noting that the FTC should not 

take actions to place manufacturers in a 

situation where their products are not 

salable overseas.78

4. Other Suggestions Regarding the 

Commission’s Proposed Amendments 

JVC proposed that the Commission 

amend the Guides to provide that 

marketers cannot describe any product 

containing more than 5% non-platinum 

group metal as ‘‘platinum.’’ 79 JVC also 

proposed revising the Guides to state 

that certain practices are unfair or 

deceptive instead of stating that they 

may be misleading. Karat Platinum 

suggested that the provision in the 

Commission’s proposed amendment 

allowing marketers to physically stamp 

platinum/base metal alloys with their 

chemical composition and the 

substantiation provision be included in 

section 23.7(c) of the Platinum Section, 

instead of section 23.7(b).80 Because 

section 23.7(c) discusses markings that 

the Commission would not consider 

misleading, Karat Platinum explained 

that the amendment permitting physical 

stamping is more appropriate in that 

section. 

5. Platinum-Clad, Filled, Plated, or 

Overlay Products 

In its 2008 FRN, the Commission also 

solicited comments concerning whether 

it should amend the Platinum Section to 

address other products that contain 

platinum, such as platinum-clad, filled, 

plated, coated, or overlay products, 

which the Guides currently do not 

address. The Commission received 

several comments in response. Most did 

not recommend specific guidance, but 

asserted that, if the Commission amends 

the Guides to provide that platinum/ 

base metal alloy products should be 

described with a ‘‘non-platinum’’ 

descriptor, then such ‘‘descriptors 

should also apply to plated, filled, 

rolled, and any other form that is not 

complete or near complete of platinum 

content.’’ 81

JVC commented that the Commission 

should provide ‘‘standards’’ regarding 

the thickness of the plating to ensure 

durability—similar to those set for 

gold—to protect consumers against 

deceptive practices.82 Its proposed 

provision stated that surface-plating 

with platinum should be composed of at 

least 950 ppt platinum and specified a 

minimum thickness of .125 microns of 

platinum electroplate and .5 microns for 

heavy electroplate. JVC’s proposal also 

provided that, if the plating is of at least 

950 ppt platinum, but does not meet the 

minimum thickness, then the product 

should be described as ‘‘platinumflashed’’ or ‘‘platinum-washed.’’ The 

proposal also stated that certain 

descriptions may be misleading: 

‘‘overlay,’’ ‘‘filled,’’ ‘‘clad,’’ ‘‘rolled-plate,’’ 

‘‘covered,’’ or ‘‘coated.’’ 83 However, JVC 

did not provide evidence that 

consumers are being, or are likely to be, 

deceived by any current marketing for 

platinum-plated jewelry or evidence 

that JVC’s proposed terms would not 

mislead consumers. 

III. Analysis 

Based on the complete record, the 

Commission amends the Guides to 

address the marketing of products 

containing platinum/base metal alloys. 

The purpose of the Jewelry Guides is to 

help marketers avoid deceptive or unfair 

conduct.84 The record demonstrates that 

deception will likely result if marketers 

describe platinum/base metal alloys as 

‘‘platinum’’ without disclosing 

additional information. The record, 

however, does not show that the 

qualified use of the term ‘‘platinum’’ 

would be deceptive. Moreover, the 

record furnishes sufficient evidence for 

the Commission to provide guidance on 

qualifying disclosures. 

Thus, the Commission concludes that 

it should amend the Guides to state that 

marketers may describe platinum/base 

metal alloys as ‘‘platinum’’ with 

appropriate disclosures. Amending the 

Guides in this manner is superior to the 

other available options: (1) Amending 

the Guides to state that marketers 

should not describe such products as 

‘‘platinum,’’ or (2) not addressing the 

issue in the Guides at all. 

Commenters, however, raised several 

concerns about the disclosures the 

Commission proposed in its 2008 FRN. 

The Commission has considered these 

comments and addresses them below, 

either revising its previous proposal or 

explaining why the record does not 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81449 

85See 73 FR 10190, 10192–10194 for a detailed 

summary of the 2005 FRN comments. 

86See, e.g., PGI Comment at 1–2; JVC Comment 

at 5; Karat Platinum Comment at 2. 

87PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum 

Attitude Study at 5 (these percentages are 

cumulative). 

88PGI identified the four most commonly used 

platinum alloys in the United States: 90% 

Platinum/10% Iridium; 95% Platinum/5% Iridium; 

95% Platinum/5% Cobalt; and 95% Platinum/5% 

Ruthenium. Maerz, Jurgen J., ‘‘Platinum Durability 

vs. Scratching,’’ posted at http:// 

www.platinumguild.com/files/pdf/ 

V6N8W_platinum_durability.pdf. All four alloys 

have at least 90% platinum. Several comments 

explained that platinum jewelry generally or 

traditionally has had at least 85%, 90%, or 95% 

platinum. See supra note 24. 

89PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum 

Attitude Study 2 at 1–4. 

90PGI Comment 2005, Attachments C and D. It 

does not appear that the PGI tests evaluated a 

product identical in composition to the Karat 

Platinum platinum/base metal alloy. 

91 Karat Platinum’s testing showed that its alloy 

is superior to platinum/PGM products in terms of 

strength, hardness, and casting ability, and that its 

ability to resist corrosion is equivalent to other 

platinum products. See Karat Platinum Comment 

2005 at 2–3. 

92 JVC and PGI acknowledged that a qualified use 

of the word ‘‘platinum’’ could, in theory, address 

consumer confusion or deception stemming from 

the use of the term ‘‘platinum’’ to describe platinum/ 

base metal alloys. Yet, JVC and PGI asserted that it 

would be impracticable and likely ineffective to 

make the lengthy, detailed disclosures that they 

believe marketers would need to make to prevent 

deception. 

93 Deception Policy Statement, 103 F.T.C. at 179 

n.32 (when evaluating representations under a 

deception analysis, one looks at the complete 

advertisement and formulates opinions ‘‘on the 

basis of the net general impression conveyed by 

them and not on isolated excerpts’’). Depending on 

the specific circumstances, qualifying disclosures 

may or may not cure otherwise deceptive messages 

or practices. Id. at 180–81. 

94See PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 

Platinum Attitude Study 3 at 1–2. When asked if 

they understood the meaning of ‘‘58.5% Platinum 

and 41.5% Copper/Cobalt,’’ 55% said yes, 33% 

stated no, and 12% stated that they were not sure. 

95 Id. When asked if they knew what 585Pt; 

415CoCu meant, 81% said no, 13% said yes, and 

7% said they were not sure. 

96Advising marketers not to use the term 

‘‘platinum’’ to describe platinum/base metal alloys 

would prevent them from describing a product 

composed of 84% platinum and 16% copper as 

‘‘platinum,’’ while competitors could use the term 

to describe a product composed of only 50% 

platinum, 45% iridium, and 5% copper. 

support revision. Finally, the 

Commission declines to amend the 

Guides to address the marketing of 

products with platinum plating or 

coatings at this time. 

A. The Record Shows That Deception 

Will Likely Result if Marketers Describe 

Platinum/Base Metal Alloys as 

‘‘Platinum’’ Without Qualification 

In 2005, the Commission found that 

deception would likely result if 

marketers describe platinum/base metal 

alloys as ‘‘platinum’’ without disclosing 

information regarding their composition 

and attributes.85 The 2008 comments do 

not dispute this finding.86 In fact, newly 

submitted consumer perception data 

further supports this conclusion. 

Specifically, the 2008 Platinum 

Attitude Study, like the 2005 Platinum 

Awareness Study, shows that most 

consumers expect products described as 

‘‘platinum’’ to contain a high percentage 

of platinum. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of 

the consumers surveyed expect a 

product described as ‘‘platinum’’ to 

contain at least 80% pure platinum and 

69% expect at least 75% pure 

platinum.87 The new data also show 

that many consumers expect products 

described using names that include the 

word ‘‘platinum,’’ or the root ‘‘plat,’’ to 

have the same attributes as products 

traditionally marketed as ‘‘platinum’’ to 

consumers in the United States.88 For 

example, 60% of those surveyed expect 

that a product described as ‘‘Karat 

Platinum’’ would definitely or probably 

have the same attributes as ‘‘platinum;’’ 

and 24% expect that even a product 

described as ‘‘Platinum Alloy’’ would 

definitely or probably have the same 

attributes as platinum.89

These expectations, however, will 

often not be met with products made 

from platinum/base metal alloys. 

Specifically, PGI’s 2005 testing indicates 

that certain platinum/base metal alloys 

are inferior to platinum/PGM products 

in terms of wear and oxidation 

resistance, as well as weight loss, and 

that they cannot be resized using certain 

procedures.90 Moreover, Karat 

Platinum’s 2005 testing shows that its 

platinum/base metal alloy is less dense 

than platinum/PGM products.91

Therefore, describing such products as 

‘‘platinum’’ without qualification is 

likely to result in deception regarding 

their purity and attributes. 

B. The Record Does Not Support 

Amending the Guides To State That 

Using the Term ‘‘Platinum’’ To Describe 

Platinum/Base Metal Alloys Is 

Necessarily Deceptive 

As noted earlier, JVC, PGI, and 

numerous retailers opposed amending 

the Guides to state that marketers of 

platinum/base metal alloys may 

describe them as ‘‘platinum’’ in a 

qualified manner. These commenters 

contended that marketers cannot 

describe such alloys as ‘‘platinum’’ 

without deceiving consumers no matter 

what information they disclose. 

Accordingly, they recommended that 

the Commission amend the Guides to 

state that marketers should not describe 

such alloys as ‘‘platinum.’’92

In evaluating whether a 

representation is misleading the 

Commission examines not only the 

claim itself, but the net impression of 

the entire advertisement.93 Thus, in 

order to state that marketers should 

never describe platinum/base metal 

alloys as ‘‘platinum,’’ the Commission 

would have to conclude that no 

reasonable qualification is sufficient to 

render the term non-deceptive. The 

record, however, does not support this 

position. The 2008 Platinum Attitude 

Study suggests that a clear majority of 

consumers (55%) understood the 

proposed full name and percentage 

content disclosure.94 In contrast, only 

13% of consumers said they understood 

disclosures using abbreviations.95

Moreover, the study likely understates 

the effectiveness of the proposed full 

name and percentage content disclosure 

for several reasons. First, this disclosure 

is designed to work in tandem with the 

third proposed disclosure (that the 

product may not have all the attributes 

of platinum/PGM), and the study did 

not test the third disclosure, either alone 

or in conjunction with the full name 

and percentage content disclosure. 

Second, some consumers who stated 

that they did not understand the 

disclosure may have understood that the 

item contained 58.5% platinum but 

found the phrase ‘‘41.5% Copper/ 

Cobalt,’’ which did not disclose the 

percentage of each metal, confusing. 

Third, as discussed in section III.C.2 

below, consumer perception data 

regarding gold jewelry shows that the 

proposed full name and percentage 

content disclosure likely would be even 

more effective than the above figures 

suggest. On its face, this second 

disclosure appears to be clear, and the 

record lacks any evidence to the 

contrary. 

Finally, guidance stating that 

marketers cannot describe platinum/ 

base metal alloys using the term 

‘‘platinum’’ would deprive consumers of 

truthful information, specifically that 

those products are primarily comprised 

of platinum.96

C. The Record Demonstrates That 

Disclosure Is the Appropriate Means for 

Attempting To Prevent Deception 

Having determined that describing 

platinum/base metal alloys as 

‘‘platinum’’ without qualification will 

likely lead to deception, and that the 

record does not show that the qualified 

use of the term ‘‘platinum’’ would be 

deceptive, the Commission concludes 

that disclosures are the appropriate 

means for attempting to prevent 

deception. Because the comments and 

new consumer perception evidence 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
81450 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

97PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum 

Attitude Study at 16. 

98 Id. at 16–17. 

99The Commission considered revising this 

provision to state that marketers should disclose 

that platinum/base metal alloys contain ‘‘platinum 

and other metals’’ or ‘‘base metals.’’ The record, 

however, does not include any consumer 

perception evidence suggesting that these 

disclosures would provide useful information. 

Furthermore, the second disclosure already 

provides the metal content of platinum/base metal 

alloys. More importantly, many platinum/PGM 

products also contain metals other than platinum, 

including base metals; therefore, such a disclosure 

would not likely help consumers distinguish 

platinum/base metal alloys from such products. 

100The 2005 Platinum Awareness Study suggests 

that most consumers do not understand numeric 

jewelry markings using parts per thousand and 

chemical abbreviations, such as ‘‘585 Pt./415 

Co.Cu.’’ PGI Comment 2005, Attachment A, 2005 

Platinum Awareness Study at 7–8, 25–26. Indeed, 

only 7.5% stated they knew what this marking 

meant, and only 6.9% of those consumers actually 

understood that the marking described the 

proportion of platinum and other metals in the 

jewelry product. Id. at 26. The 2008 Platinum 

Attitude Study suggests that most consumers do not 

understand chemical abbreviations. Indeed, 81% of 

those surveyed said they did not know what ‘‘585 

Pt; 415 CoCu’’ meant. PGI Comment, Attachment A, 

2008 Platinum Attitude Study at 14–15. Of those 

who said they knew or were not sure, only one 

correctly responded that it meant ‘‘585 parts 

platinum, 415 parts cobalt/copper.’’ Therefore, 

keeping the percentage disclosure will assist 

consumers’ understanding of the product’s content. 

101PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 Platinum 

Attitude Study at 14–15. Thirty three percent (33%) 

stated that they did not know, and 12% stated that 

they were not sure. Id. 

102 Id. at 15. The 2008 Platinum Attitude Study 

did not indicate the number or exact percentage of 

respondents who responded in this manner, only 

this characterization. 

103 Id. at 14–15; see also PGI Comment at 10–11. 

104PGI Comment 2005, Attachment A, Platinum 

Awareness Study at 24. 

105The attributes were durability, luster, density, 

scratch resistance, tarnish resistance, ability to be 

resized, hypoallergenicity, and retention of precious 

metal over time. PGI Comment, Attachment A, 2008 

Platinum Attitude Study at 16. 

106 Id. 

107 Id. Between 47% and 55% of those surveyed 

indicated they ‘‘did not know’’ or ‘‘were not sure’’ 

whether the product differed from platinum, 

depending on the attribute. 

108 JVC Comment at 8; see also PGI Comment at 

13, 35–36 (The 2008 Platinum Attitude Study 

revealed that 80% of consumers do not understand 

the phrase ‘‘other non-platinum group metals.’’); 

Attachment A, 2008 Platinum Attitude Study at 16– 

17. 

109The Commission derived this percentage from 

the comments and PGI’s Web site. See also supra 

notes 25 and 88. 

reinforce the concerns the Commission 

considered in its 2008 FRN, the 

following analysis begins with the 

Commission’s proposed three-tiered 

disclosure regime. 

1. The Commission’s First Proposed 

Disclosure 

The first proposed disclosure 

provided that marketers of platinum/ 

base metal alloys disclose that their 

products ‘‘contain platinum and other 

non-platinum group metals.’’ The 2008 

Platinum Attitude Study, however, 

suggests that few consumers understand 

this disclosure. Only 20% of those 

surveyed indicated that they knew what 

the phrase ‘‘other non-platinum group 

metals’’ meant.97 Moreover, many 

consumers who said either they ‘‘knew’’ 

or ‘‘were not sure of’’ the disclosure’s 

meaning did not know whether cobalt, 

copper, palladium, rhodium, and silver 

are non-platinum group metals (over 

60% for cobalt, palladium, and 

rhodium, and 47% for copper and 

silver).98 The Commission, therefore, 

concludes that this disclosure is 

unlikely to provide useful information. 

Accordingly, the adopted amendment 

excludes this provision.99

2. The Commission’s Second Proposed 

Disclosure 

The second proposed disclosure 

provided that marketers of platinum/ 

base metal alloys disclose the product’s 

full composition, by name and not 

abbreviation, and the percentage of each 

metal in the product.100 The consumer 

perception data suggests that the 

majority of consumers understand this 

disclosure. Indeed, 55% of those 

surveyed indicated that they knew what 

the phrase ‘‘58.5% Platinum and 41.5% 

Copper/Cobalt’’ meant.101 In addition, 

the ‘‘vast majority’’ of those who 

indicated either they ‘‘knew’’ or ‘‘were 

not sure’’ what the disclosure meant 

correctly identified the platinum and 

copper/cobalt combination or indicated 

that the product had a combination of 

the metals.102

Although a substantial minority of 

consumers surveyed said they did not 

understand the disclosure, or were not 

sure what it meant, many of those 

consumers may have understood that a 

product with 58.5% platinum is less 

‘‘pure’’ than traditional platinum 

products.103 Indeed, consumer 

perception data addressing gold jewelry 

suggests that this is the case. 

Specifically, even though many 

consumers cannot define the term ‘‘14 

karat gold’’ accurately, they understand 

that ‘‘14 karat’’ represents the amount of 

gold in the product and that 18 karat 

gold jewelry contains more gold than 14 

karat gold jewelry.104 Similarly it is 

reasonable to conclude that consumers 

would understand that a product 

labeled 58.5% platinum would contain 

a lower percentage of platinum than a 

product they expect to have 85% 

platinum. Therefore, the Commission 

concludes that the second proposed 

disclosure is the best option for 

addressing possible deception regarding 

the purity of platinum/base metal 

alloys. 

Furthermore, consumer perception 

data suggests that this type of disclosure 

would also help prevent deception 

regarding the attributes of platinum/ 

base metal alloys. Specifically, survey 

participants were asked whether a ring 

containing 58.5% Platinum and 41.5% 

Copper/Cobalt is likely to differ from a 

platinum ring on eight specific 

attributes.105 Depending on the 

attribute, between 28% and 43% of the 

respondents indicated the ring would 

differ from platinum.106 This data 

suggests that many consumers exposed 

to this type of disclosure do not have 

the impression that platinum/base metal 

alloys have the same attributes as 

platinum/PGM products. More than half 

the consumers surveyed, however, 

indicated that they ‘‘were not sure’’ or 

‘‘did not know’’ whether the product 

differed from platinum.107 Therefore, 

further disclosure is needed to avoid 

deception. 

3. The Commission’s Third Proposed 

Disclosure 

The third proposed disclosure 

advised marketers to state that a 

platinum/base metal alloy may not have 

all the attributes that consumers 

associate with higher purity platinum/ 

PGM products. It also provided that 

marketers need not make this disclosure 

if they possess competent and reliable 

scientific evidence that, with respect to 

all attributes material to consumers, 

such product is equivalent to products 

containing at least 850 ppt pure 

platinum, or at least 500 ppt pure 

platinum and at least 950 ppt PGM. The 

comments filed in 2008 raise six 

concerns regarding this provision. 

First, commenters noted that many 

consumers do not understand the terms 

‘‘platinum group metals’’ or ‘‘other nonplatinum group metals.’’108 As a result, 

it is likely that these consumers would 

not fully understand this disclosure. To 

address this issue, the Commission has 

revised the disclosure to replace the 

reference to PGM with the phrase 

‘‘traditional platinum products.’’ 

The most common platinum jewelry 

currently marketed in the United States 

contains at least 85% platinum.109

Consumers, therefore, would reasonably 

understand that traditional platinum 

products are those having the attributes 

of products containing at least 85% 

platinum. This conclusion is further 

supported by the 2008 survey and 

comments from industry demonstrating 

that consumers expect platinum 

products to be from 85% to all or almost 

all pure. The amended Guides, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81451 

110 Instead of comparing attributes to all products 

containing either at least 85% platinum or at least 

50% but less than 85% platinum and at least 95% 

PGM, platinum/base metal alloys marketers need 

only compare their products’ attributes to any one 

traditional platinum product. 

111The last phrase, ‘‘and any other attribute or 

property material to consumers,’’ does not provide 

the certainty some commenters may desire, but the 

surveys never asked consumers which attributes 

they think are material. Instead, the surveys simply 

provided a list of attributes and asked consumers 

to comment. Therefore, the record does not 

demonstrate that the terms provided are 

comprehensive. Moreover, over time consumers 

may find additional attributes material. The 

uncertainty posed by the catch-all phrase, however, 

puts platinum marketers in no different position 

than all other marketers in the economy who must 

substantiate all their material claims. 

112 Karat Platinum cited to PGI data showing that 

products containing 95% platinum and 5% 

ruthenium are more durable and scratch resistant 

than products containing 95% platinum and 5% 

iridium. The data also showed that both of these 

products are more durable and scratch resistant 

than a product containing 100% platinum. Karat 

Platinum Comment at 2–3. 

113 JVC Comment at 10–11. 

114 61 FR 27224, 27225 (May 30, 1996). See also 

16 CFR 1.5. 

115The Commission followed a similar approach 

in 1997 when it revised the Guides to provide that 

fully disclosing the content of platinum/PGM 

products that contain less than 85% platinum 

would be sufficient to avoid deception. The 

Commission reasoned that ‘‘[a]n informative 

marking or description will put consumers on 

notice that the product contains certain precious 

metals, thereby putting them in a position to 

inquire of the jeweler as to the relative value of the 

different metals and the overall value of the 

product.’’ 62 FR 16669, 16673 (Apr. 8, 1997). Other 

Commission Guides and Rules similarly prevent 

deception by providing that marketers disclose 

enough information for consumers to make an 

informed choice or to seek the information needed 

to do so. See, e.g., Section 260.7(d) of the Guides 

for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims 

(Example 4), 16 CFR 260.7(d); Section 424.1 of the 

Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing 

Practices Rule, 16 CFR 424.1. 

116 JVC Comment at 5–6, 9; PGI Comment at 4, 17. 

117The law requires marketers to have 

substantiation for their claims. See Telebrands 

Corp., 140 F.T.C. 278, 342 (2005), aff’d, 57 F.3d 354 

(4th Cir. 2006); FTC Policy Statement Regarding 

Advertising Substantiation, Appendix to Thompson 

Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 648, 839 (1984). 

118The provision does not specify every material 

attribute or the type of scientific substantiation 

necessary to avoid making the disclosure, although 

it does identify material attributes that seem likely 

to remain material over the long term. Because we 

may discover that consumers find other attributes 

material now or in the future, and the nature of the 

substantiation may change over time, the 

Commission believes that flexible guidance is 

appropriate and that members of the jewelry 

industry are well-positioned to comply with such 

guidance. 

119See Sears, Roebuck & Co., 95 F.T.C. 406, 511 

(1980), aff’d, 676 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding 

that an advertiser is responsible for all claims, 

express and implied, that are reasonably conveyed 

by the advertisement). 

therefore, treat ‘‘traditional platinum’’ as 

that containing at least 85% pure 

platinum. This change provides 

consumers with a short, clear disclosure 

which is consistent with their current 

views. Additionally, the new definition 

provides a more limited universe of 

comparison, which should help 

marketers respond to questions 

precipitated by the disclosure.110

Second, several comments suggested 

that the Commission specify each 

material attribute identified in the 

consumer perception data instead of 

merely listing examples. Adopting this 

suggestion should provide greater 

clarity for marketers. Accordingly, the 

provision now states that marketers 

need not make this disclosure if they 

have the required evidence ‘‘with 

respect to the following attributes or 

properties: durability, luster, density, 

scratch resistance, tarnish resistance, 

hypoallergenicity, ability to be resized 

or repaired, retention of precious metal 

over time, and any other attribute or 

property material to consumers.’’ 111

Third, Karat Platinum contended that 

the Commission provides insufficient 

guidance regarding the evidence needed 

to substantiate that platinum/base metal 

alloys have the same material attributes 

as higher purity platinum products. 

Specifically, Karat Platinum explained 

that marketers would not know which 

higher purity platinum products to 

which they should compare their 

products. To support this point, Karat 

Platinum submitted evidence showing 

that traditional platinum products can 

differ from each other with respect to 

scratch resistance and durability.112

Although the record shows that 

traditional platinum products can differ 

from each other with respect to certain 

attributes, these differences may be 

insignificant to consumers, and the 

record does not indicate that consumers 

have been deceived as a result. If some 

traditional platinum products differ 

from each other in immaterial ways, it 

follows that some platinum/base metal 

alloys may likewise differ from 

traditional platinum in immaterial 

ways. The Commission, therefore, 

concludes that a platinum/base metal 

alloy marketer need not make the third 

disclosure to prevent deception if the 

material attributes of its product do not 

differ materially from the attributes of 

any traditional platinum product. 

Fourth, JVC argued that only full 

disclosure of every materially different 

attribute would prevent deception 

because consumers want and expect this 

information.113 JVC further contended 

that it would be impractical for 

marketers to make such disclosures; and 

therefore, the Commission should 

amend the Guides to prevent marketers 

from using the term ‘‘platinum’’ to 

describe platinum/base metal alloys. 

The Commission disagrees. The purpose 

of the Guides is not to maintain 

uniformly high product standards, but 

to prevent unfairness and deception.114

The potential deception here is 

consumers’ assumption that platinum/ 

base metal alloys are as pure as 

traditional platinum and/or that they 

have the same attributes as traditional 

platinum. A clear and conspicuous 

disclosure of a product’s composition 

and that its attributes may differ from 

those of traditional platinum addresses 

this potential deception. If consumers 

are then interested in how this new 

product differs from traditional 

platinum products, they can seek 

further information before purchasing a 

jewelry product.115

Fifth, some commenters argued that 

the substantiation proviso is too 

subjective, and therefore, 

unworkable.116 They contended that 

marketers will differ in their 

understanding of which attributes are 

material and the tests they should use 

to determine differences. They added 

that no industry-wide, universallyaccepted testing methods or standards 

relating to the attributes of jewelry 

currently exist. 

Neither of these arguments warrants 

further modifying the proposed proviso. 

Marketers are responsible for 

substantiating their claims.117 In this 

case, the evidence demonstrates that 

using the term ‘‘platinum’’ to describe a 

platinum/base metal alloy conveys the 

claim that the product has the same 

attributes as traditional platinum. 

Marketers, therefore, may make 

disclosures to dispel this claim, avoid 

the claim altogether, or obtain 

competent reliable scientific evidence to 

substantiate the claim. For marketers 

seeking to avoid the disclosure and still 

use the term ‘‘platinum’’ to describe their 

platinum/base metal alloys, the proviso 

identifies eight material attributes of 

jewelry based on the consumer 

perception data in the record. If 

additional attributes are, or become, 

material to consumers, marketers are 

responsible for determining what those 

attributes are and obtaining the 

corresponding substantiation.118 This 

places jewelry sellers in no different a 

position than any other marketer.119

Furthermore, the record shows that 

tests do exist for determining how some 

material attributes of jewelry products 

differ from each other. Indeed, both 

Karat Platinum and PGI submitted tests 

showing whether, and to what extent, 

certain material attributes of various 

platinum/base metal alloys differ from 

those of platinum/PGM products. 

Moreover, marketers need not rely on 

industry-wide, universally-accepted 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
81452 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

120 ‘‘Competent and reliable scientific evidence’’ 

means tests, analyses, research, studies, or other 

evidence based on the expertise of professionals in 

the relevant area, conducted and evaluated in an 

objective manner by persons qualified to do so, 

using procedures generally accepted in the 

profession to yield accurate and reliable results. See 

Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing 

Claims, 16 CFR 260.5; and Telebrands Corp., 140 

F.T.C. 278, 347 (2005), aff’d, 57 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 

2006). In the absence of industry-wide, universally 

accepted tests, marketers can rely on tests 

conducted and evaluated objectively using 

procedures generally accepted by professionals in 

the area. 

121See, e.g., Mohawk Petition, 74 FR 13099, 

13102–13103 (Mar. 26, 2009). 

122 JVC Comment at 9, 14; PGI Comment at 2, 4, 

17–18. 

123See, e.g., JVC Comment at 12–13; PGI 

Comment at 15–16, 23; Lowell Kwiat Comment at 

1; Tiffany Comment at 4. 

124Presumably marketers are already accustomed 

to answering questions about the differences 

between the jewelry products they sell and 

competing products. If marketers can explain the 

difference between jewelry made from platinum/ 

PGM, gold, or platinum/base metal alloys not 

currently described as platinum, for example, they 

should be able to explain the differences between 

platinum/PGM products and platinum/base metal 

alloys described as platinum. In fact, the JA e-mail 

survey also showed that 23.1% of the retailers 

surveyed would find it ‘‘easy’’ or ‘‘very easy’’ to 

make the disclosures orally (the remaining 24% 

responded ‘‘not sure’’ or did not answer the 

question). 

125The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 states that 

no Federal agency ‘‘may engage in standards-related 

activity that creates unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States and that 

Federal agencies must, in developing standards take 

into consideration international standards and 

shall, if appropriate, base the standards on 

international standards.’’ 19 U.S.C. 2532(2)(A). The 

term ‘‘standard’’ in the Act includes guidelines that 

are not mandatory, such as the Jewelry Guides. The 

Act provides, however, that ‘‘the prevention of 

deceptive practices’’ is an area where basing a 

standard on an international standard ‘‘may not be 

appropriate.’’ Id. at § 2532(2)(B)(i)(II). 

126See http://www.iso.org/iso/standards 

development/process and procedures how are 

standards developed.htm. Gaetano Cavalieri 

Comment at 2. 

127Moreover, the current Guides already conflict 

with ISO and CIBJO standards in that they allow 

marketers to mark products as platinum, with 

certain qualifications, even though they contain less 

than 85% platinum (provided they contain at least 

50% platinum and 95% PGM). 

128See, e.g., JVC Comment at 13. 

129 Karat Platinum Comment 2005 at 2. 

tests or standards, so long as they have 

competent and reliable scientific 

evidence.120 Indeed, marketers 

frequently develop evidence to 

substantiate their claims even in the 

absence of industry-wide, universallyaccepted tests or standards.121 The 

challenges in developing such evidence 

cited by commenters are not unique to 

the jewelry industry and do not warrant 

further modification of the proviso. 

Finally, some commenters contended 

that the third proposed disclosure 

would present endless possibilities for 

non-compliance and enforcement would 

be hopelessly difficult.122 The 

Commission issues guidance to help 

those marketers who are trying to 

comply with the law, not for those who 

are intent on violating it. The Guides 

themselves, however, are not 

independently enforceable. Therefore, 

the Commission would have to bring 

any enforcement action under Section 5 

of the FTC Act and prove that a 

marketer lacked substantiation for its 

claims, regardless of what the Guides 

provided. 

D. Commenters’ General Objections to 

the Disclosure Provisions Do Not Justify 

Further Modification 

The comments filed in 2008 raise four 

general objections to the proposed 

amendment, none of which warrant 

modifications. First, commenters 

contended that the proposed disclosures 

are unworkable because: Consumers 

will not read lengthy, technical written 

disclosures; the average jewelry sales 

personnel lack the expertise to make 

oral disclosures effectively; and the 

disclosures will likely have a chilling 

effect on sales.123

These objections are not persuasive. 

With regard to written disclosures, there 

is no evidence in the record indicating 

that consumers will not read written 

disclosures regarding a platinum/base 

metal alloy’s composition and a simple 

statement that it may differ from 

traditional platinum. Moreover, the 

Commission has reduced the size of the 

proposed disclosures by eliminating the 

first proposed disclosure, and has 

simplified the language in the third 

proposed disclosure. These changes 

make the disclosures shorter and nontechnical, and therefore, easier to 

comprehend. Additionally, the 2008 

Platinum Attitude Study suggests that 

most consumers can read and 

understand disclosures regarding the 

composition of jewelry using the full 

name and percentage of each metal. 

With regard to the inability of sales 

personnel to make oral disclosures, the 

record includes the JA e-mail survey 

showing that 52.5% of the retailers 

surveyed would find it ‘‘difficult’’ or 

very ‘‘difficult’’ to make the disclosures 

orally. Sales clerks, however, need not 

make any disclosure if marketers clearly 

and conspicuously make the written 

disclosures provided in the amended 

Guides. Moreover, simply because 

making a disclosure is difficult does not 

mean that it cannot reasonably be 

done.124

With regard to any chilling effect 

disclosure may have on sales, no 

commenter has a larger stake in robust 

sales of platinum/base metal alloy 

products than Karat Platinum. Yet Karat 

Platinum, an entity that would be 

responsible for making the disclosures, 

indicated that the disclosures are 

workable and does not object to them. 

The Commission, therefore, finds this 

argument unpersuasive. 

Second, many commenters objected to 

the proposed amendment because it 

conflicts with international standards. 

As the Commission explained in its 

2008 FRN, however, this is not a basis 

for rejecting the amendment. Although 

the Commission generally prefers to 

harmonize its guidance with 

international laws and standards, 

Commission Guides must be based upon 

deception or unfairness.125 The 

commenters base their argument on 

conflicts between the Commission’s 

proposed amendment and ISO and 

CIBJO standards. These standards, 

however, are technical industry 

standards developed through a 

consensus-building process based on a 

variety of considerations—such as 

facilitating trade and promoting 

international cooperation—and not 

solely upon deception.126

Harmonization with international 

standards is typically favored. Where, as 

here, however, there is insufficient 

evidence that a particular claim (i.e., a 

qualified platinum representation) is 

deceptive, the Commission cannot 

promulgate a guide stating that 

marketers should not make the 

representation solely to achieve 

harmony.127

Third, some commenters argued that 

any written disclosure regarding the 

composition of platinum/base metal 

alloy jewelry would likely become 

separated from the jewelry over time.128

They contended that, as a result, 

jewelers could not effectively appraise, 

resize, or repair the jewelry at a later 

time. However, the commenters’ 

proposed solution, amending the Guides 

to state that marketers should not 

describe platinum/base metal alloys as 

‘‘platinum,’’ fails to resolve this problem. 

Specifically, describing such alloys as 

something other than ‘‘platinum’’ at the 

time of purchase does not insure that 

jewelers would have the information 

necessary to identify, value, resize, or 

repair the jewelry in the future. 

Physically stamping or marking 

jewelry to indicate its composition 

would address this concern. The Guides 

currently do not require stamping, and 

there is no evidence that such a 

requirement is necessary in this case. In 

fact, Karat Platinum already marks its 

products with composition 

information.129 However, the 

Commission amends Section 23.7(c) of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81453 

130The Commission agrees with Karat Platinum 

that one provision in the amendments adopted 

herein belongs in Section 23.7(c) rather than 

23.7(b). Accordingly, the Commission decided to 

add this provision to Section 23.7(c) and revise it 

in a non-substantive manner so that the wording is 

consistent with the other parts of Section 23.7(c). 

the Guides to clarify that marketers may 

mark or stamp platinum/base metal 

alloy jewelry accurately to indicate 

composition using parts per thousand 

and standard chemical abbreviations 

(e.g., 585 Pt., 415 Co.) without triggering 

the new disclosure. This amendment 

should insure that marketers are not 

deterred from marking their products 

based upon the Commission’s new 

platinum guidance. The Commission 

proposed this amendment in its 2008 

FRN, and no commenter specifically 

objected. If actual deception occurs 

based on the lack of marking, or the lack 

of further disclosure, the Commission 

may consider amending the Guides at a 

later date. 

Finally, although Karat Platinum 

supported the Commission’s general 

approach, it argued that the Commission 

should level the playing field by 

amending the Guides to provide that 

marketers of both platinum/base metal 

alloys and platinum/PGM products 

make the same composition and 

attribute disclosures detailed above. 

Karat Platinum argued that consumers 

do not understand the chemical 

abbreviations used to describe 

platinum/PGM products containing less 

than 95% platinum any better than they 

understand the chemical abbreviations 

used to describe the content of 

platinum/base metal alloys. It also 

argued that platinum/PGM products 

differ from each other with respect to 

material attributes such as durability 

and scratch resistance. 

The record suggests that marketers of 

at least some products consisting of at 

least 50% but less than 85% platinum 

and at least 95% PGM may need to 

make additional disclosures when 

describing their products as ‘‘platinum’’ 

to avoid deception; however, further 

evidence is needed. The attributes of 

these products may vary depending 

upon the combination of metals used. 

We have no evidence whether these 

differences are material to consumers. 

Absent such evidence we decline to 

amend the Guides to provide for 

additional disclosures. Marketers of 

these products must ensure that they are 

not making deceptive statements about 

their products based on reasonable 

consumer perception. 

We, therefore, conclude that the 

disclosures, described above, are the 

best option for addressing deception 

regarding the attributes of platinum/ 

base metal alloys described as 

‘‘platinum.’’ 

E. The Record Is Insufficient To Warrant 

Amending the Guides To Address the 

Marketing of Products Containing 

Platinum Plating or Coatings 

Several comments proposed that the 

Commission provide detailed guidance 

regarding the marketing of products 

containing platinum plating or coating. 

The JVC comment, for example, 

proposed addressing a number of issues 

relating to the marketing of such 

products, including the platinum 

content and thickness of platinum 

plating, washing or flashing, and heavy 

plating. The record, however, does not 

include any evidence regarding how 

consumers perceive products with 

platinum plating or coating or the 

claims made for them. Nor does the 

record include any evidence showing 

how the industry proposal would 

address any problem that may exist, or 

how consumers would perceive the 

disclosures contemplated by the 

proposal. Accordingly, the Commission 

declines to amend the Guides to address 

the marketing of products with 

platinum plating or coatings at this 

time.130

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 23 

Advertising, Jewelry, Labeling, 

Pewter, Precious metals, and Trade 

practices. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Trade 

Commission amends 16 CFR part 23 as 

follows: 

PART 23—GUIDES FOR THE 

JEWELRY, PRECIOUS METALS, AND 

PEWTER INDUSTRIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 23 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 45, 46. 

■ 2. Amend § 23.0 by adding paragraphs 

(d) and (e) to read as follows: 

23.0 Scope and application. 

* * * * * 

(d) These guides set forth the Federal 

Trade Commission’s current thinking 

about claims for jewelry and other 

articles made from precious metals and 

pewter. The guides help marketers and 

other industry members avoid making 

claims that are unfair or deceptive 

under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. 45. They do not confer any rights 

on any person and do not operate to 

bind the FTC or the public. The 

Commission, however, may take action 

under the FTC Act if a marketer or other 

industry member makes a claim 

inconsistent with the guides. In any 

such enforcement action, the 

Commission must prove that the 

challenged act or practice is unfair or 

deceptive in violation of Section 5 of the 

FTC Act. 

(e) The guides consist of general 

principles, specific guidance on the use 

of particular claims for industry 

products, and examples. Claims may 

raise issues that are addressed by more 

than one example and in more than one 

section of the guides. The examples 

provide the Commission’s views on how 

reasonable consumers likely interpret 

certain claims. Industry members may 

use an alternative approach if the 

approach satisfies the requirements of 

Section 5 of the FTC Act. Whether a 

particular claim is deceptive will 

depend on the net impression of the 

advertisement, label, or other 

promotional material at issue. In 

addition, although many examples 

present specific claims and options for 

qualifying claims, the examples do not 

illustrate all permissible claims or 

qualifications under Section 5 of the 

FTC Act. 

■ 3. Amend § 23.7 by adding paragraphs 

(b)(4) and (c)(5) to read as follows: 

23.7 Misuse of words ‘‘platinum,’’ 

‘‘iridium,’’, ‘‘palladium,’’ ‘‘ruthenium,’’ 

‘‘rhodium,’’ and ‘‘osmium.’’ 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Use of the word ‘‘Platinum,’’ or any 

abbreviation accompanied by a number 

or percentage indicating the parts per 

thousand of pure Platinum contained in 

the product, to describe all or part of an 

industry product that contains at least 

500 parts per thousand, but less than 

850 parts per thousand, pure Platinum, 

and does not contain at least 950 parts 

per thousand PGM (for example, ‘‘585 

Plat.’’) without a clear and conspicuous 

disclosure, immediately following the 

name or description of such product: 

(i) Of the full composition of the product 

(by name and not abbreviation) and 

percentage of each metal; and 

(ii) That the product may not have the 

same attributes or properties as traditional 

platinum products. Provided, however, that 

the marketer need not make disclosure under 

§ 23.7(b)(4)(ii), if the marketer has competent 

and reliable scientific evidence that such 

product does not differ materially from any 

one product containing at least 850 parts per 

thousand pure Platinum with respect to the 

following attributes or properties: durability, 

luster, density, scratch resistance, tarnish 

resistance, hypoallergenicity, ability to be 

resized or repaired, retention of precious 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
81454 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

metal over time, and any other attribute or 

property material to consumers. 

Note to paragraph (b)(4): When using 

percentages to qualify platinum 

representations, marketers should convert the 

amount in parts per thousand to a percentage 

that is accurate to the first decimal place 

(e.g., 58.5% Platinum, 41.5% Cobalt). 

(c) * * * 

(5) An industry product consisting of 

at least 500 parts per thousand, but less 

than 850 parts per thousand, pure 

Platinum, and not consisting of at least 

950 parts per thousand PGM, may be 

marked or stamped accurately, with a 

quality marking on the article, using 

parts per thousand and standard 

chemical abbreviations (e.g., 585 Pt., 

415 Co.). 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32273 Filed 12–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

JOINT BOARD FOR ENROLLMENT OF 

ACTUARIES 

20 CFR Part 903 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment 

of Actuaries. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, 

as amended, the Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint Board) is 

amending the requirements regarding 

access to records to revise the listing of 

the Joint Board’s systems of records for 

which the Joint Board has claimed 

exemptions, under section (k)(2) of the 

Privacy Act, from certain of the Privacy 

Act’s provisions, to revise language that 

incorrectly implies that the Joint Board 

has yet to seek such exemptions or that 

incorrectly implies that the Joint Board’s 

claims for exemption are still pending, 

and to correct internal references. 

DATES: This rule is March 28, 2011 

without further action, unless adverse 

comment is received by January 27, 

2011. If adverse comment is received, 

the Joint Board will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the rule in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent 

to: Executive Director, Joint Board for 

the Enrollment of Actuaries, c/o Internal 

Revenue Service/Office of Professional 

Responsibility, SE:OPR, 1111 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20224. Comments will be available 

for inspection and copying in the IRS 

Freedom of Information Reading Room 

(Room 1621) at the above address. The 

telephone number for the Reading Room 

is (202) 622–5164 (not a toll-free 

number). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earl 

Prater, Senior Counsel, Office of 

Professional Responsibility, at (202) 

622–8018 (not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Joint 

Board is proposing to simplify the 

administration of its Privacy Act 

systems of records by consolidating the 

current nine systems into three systems 

of records and to revise the data 

elements of consolidated systems of 

records notices so as to ensure that they 

accurately reflect the jurisdictional 

coverage and operational requirements 

of the Joint Board’s regulations, which 

are set out at 20 CFR parts 901 through 

903. 

The Joint Board will publish 

separately in the Federal Register a 

notice proposing to consolidate and 

revise its Privacy Act systems of 

records. As described in the notice, the 

Joint Board proposes to consolidate its 

systems of records as follows: 

JBEA–2, Charge Case Inventory Files, 

will be renamed ‘‘Enrolled Actuary 

Disciplinary Records’’ and will 

consolidate all disciplinary-related 

records from that system and from the 

following systems— 

JBEA–4, Enrollment Files; 

JBEA–8, Suspension and Termination 

Files; and 

JBEA–9, Suspension and Termination 

Roster. 

JBEA–4, Enrollment Files, will be 

renamed ‘‘Enrolled Actuary Enrollment 

Records’’ and will consolidate all 

enrollment-related records from that 

system and from the following 

systems— 

JBEA–1, Application Files; 

JBEA–2, Charge Case Inventory Files; 

JBEA–3, Denied Applications; 

JBEA–5, Enrollment Roster; 

JBEA–7, General Information; 

JBEA–8, Suspension and Termination 

Files; and 

JBEA–9, Suspension and Termination 

Roster. 

JBEA–6, General Correspondence File, 

will be renamed ‘‘Correspondence and 

Miscellaneous Records.’’ 

The following systems of records will 

be deleted upon implementation of the 

consolidated and revised systems: 

JBEA–1, Application Files; 

JBEA–3, Denied Applications; 

JBEA–5, Enrollment Roster; 

JBEA–7, General Information; 

JBEA–8, Suspension and Termination 

Files; and 

JBEA–9, Suspension and Termination 

Roster. 

If a system of records contains 

investigative material compiled for law 

enforcement purposes, section (k)(2) of 

the Privacy Act permits the head of an 

agency to promulgate a rule to exempt 

a system of records from the Privacy 

Act’s provisions granting individuals 

certain rights with respect to the records 

that pertain to them, including the right 

to review and copy the records. As 

permitted by section (k)(2), the Joint 

Board published the following 

documents to exempt certain systems of 

records: 

On August 27, 1975 (40 FR 39387), 

the Joint Board published a proposed 

rule to exempt five systems of records, 

designating the rule as 20 CFR part 903. 

On September 30, 1975 (40 FR 45113), 

the Joint Board published its proposed 

Privacy Act regulations, designating 

such regulations as 20 CFR part 903, 

and in the same publication, the Joint 

Board republished its proposed rule to 

exempt five systems of records, 

redesignating the exempting rule as 20 

CFR 903.8. 

On January 8, 1976 (41 FR 1493), the 

Joint Board published its final Privacy 

Act regulations as 20 CFR part 903 and 

in the same publication, the Joint Board 

published its final rule to exempt five 

systems of records, designating the 

exempting rule as 20 CFR 903.8. 

The systems of records for which the 

Joint Board has claimed exemptions are 

listed in 20 CFR 903.8(a) as follows: 

JBEA—Enrollment Files; 

JBEA—Application Files; 

JBEA—General Information; 

JBEA—Charge Case Inventory Files; 

and 

JBEA—Suspension and Termination 

Files. 

This direct final rule will amend 20 

CFR 903.8 as follows: 

a. The exempt system currently listed 

as ‘‘JBEA—Charge Case Inventory Files’’ 

will be listed as ‘‘JBEA–2, Enrolled 

Actuary Disciplinary Records.’’ 

b. The exempt system currently listed 

as ‘‘JBEA—Enrollment Files’’ will be 

listed as ‘‘JBEA–4, Enrolled Actuary 

Enrollment Records.’’ 

c. The following systems will be 

deleted from the listing of exempt 

systems: 

JBEA—Application Files; 

JBEA—General Information; and 

JBEA—Suspension and Termination 

Files. 

d. Language such as ‘‘Exemption will 

be claimed’’ (§ 903.8(b)), which 

incorrectly implies that the Joint Board 

has yet to seek exemptions, and 

language such as the ‘‘the Joint Board 

seeks exemption’’ (§ 903.8(c)(2)(i), (ii), 

(iii), (iv), (v), and (vi)), which 

incorrectly implies that the Joint Board’s 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES