27224 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1The Commission published a FRN soliciting

public comment on amendments to the Jewelry

Guides, including revisions to section 23.7

regarding platinum products. 57 FR 24996 (June 12,

1992). That FRN was published in response to a

petition proposing changes, submitted by the

Jewelers Vigilance Committee (‘‘JVC’’).

2 57 FR 24996 (June 12, 1992). The comments are

cited to by an abbreviation of the commenter’s

name and the document number assigned to the

comment on the public record. A list of the

commenters, including the abbreviations and

document numbers used to identify each

commenter, is attached as an appendix.

3 Commercial Standards were promulgated by the

U.S. Department of Commerce and administered by

the National Bureau of Standards (‘‘NBS’’). Later

renamed by the NBS as Voluntary Product

Standards, they had the same legal significance as

FTC guides. The Department of Commerce and the

NBS, which is now called the National Institute of

Standards and Technology, withdrew these and all

other VPS, as an economy measure, on January 20,

1984.

4The VPS provided, for the various types of PGM

products, different ‘‘parts per thousand’’

requirements for products with solder and without

solder. The JVC proposal dropped these references

to solder (except as to a proposed new product,

chain articles containing solder-filled wire,

discussed infra). There was no comment opposing

this change. The Commission solicits comment on

whether references to solder should be included in

the Guides.

5 Korbelak (27) p.5 (stating that ‘‘platinum is

platinum’’) and G&B (30) p.8 (stating that platinum

should remain at a ‘‘high, high, standard’’).

6Fasnacht (4); Estate (23); Jabel (47); Handy (62);

ArtCarved (155); IJA (192); Canada (209); Matthey

(213); MJSA (226); Preston (229); PGI (245); and

Leach (257).

7Comment 245, p.2 (stating further that other

countries ‘‘produce ’950 platinum’ alloys with

oftentimes superior casting and working

characteristics,’’ and that ‘‘[t]he U.S. needs these

materials to be at the cutting edge of jewelry

technology from a materials standpoint’’).

8Matthey (213) p.2; ArtCarved (155) p.4 (stating

that ‘‘950’’ is used internationally and should be the

U.S. standard); Canada (209) p.4 (stating that the

proposal ‘‘would align the [Guides] with the current

Canadian standard’’); JCWA (216) p.3 (stating that

‘‘lowering the minimum to a level of grade 900/

1000 would better reflect accepted international

practice’’).

9The National Stamping Act, which establishes

tolerance for gold and silver, does not apply to

platinum. The JVC proposed including a Note

stating that the ‘‘actual Platinum content of an

industry product shall not be less than the Platinum

content indicated by the quality marks.’’ However,

because extremely minor variances of the type

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR PART 23

Guides for the Jewelry, Precious

Metals and Pewter Industries

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) is

requesting public comments on

proposed revisions to § 23.7 of the

Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals

and Pewter Industries (‘‘the Guides’’).

Section 23.7 of the Guides addresses

claims made about platinum products.

All interested persons are hereby given

notice of the opportunity to submit

written data, views and arguments

concerning this proposal.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until August 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room H–159, Sixth and

Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20580. Comments about these

proposed changes to the Guides should

be identified as ‘‘Guides for the Jewelry,

Precious Metals and Pewter Industry—

16 CFR Part 23—Comment.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Constance M. Vecellio or Laura J.

DeMartino, Attorneys, Federal Trade

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580,

(202) 326–2966 or (202) 326–3030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

In a separate Federal Register Notice

(‘‘FRN’’), the Commission announced

revisions to its Guides for the Jewelry

Industry, renamed Guides for the

Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter

Industries, 16 CFR Part 23.1 The Guides

for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and

Pewter Industries (‘‘the Guides’’)

address claims made about precious

metals, diamonds, gemstones and pearl

products. The Commission did not

revise section 23.7 of the Guides for the

Jewelry Industry, which addresses

claims made about platinum products.

Industry members have indicated the

need to simplify current Commission

guidance regarding claims that a

product is composed of platinum and

bring this guidance into closer accord

with international standards. The

Commission concluded, however, that

additional comment would be helpful to

resolve certain issues. Below, the

Commission describes the comments

discussing the marking of platinum

products, submitted in response to the

prior FRN.2 The Commission also

discusses its proposed changes to this

section. The Commission solicits

comment on this provision of the

Guides and the proposed changes.

II. Analysis of Comments

A. Background

Section 23.7 of the Guides for the

Jewelry Industry states that it is an

unfair trade practice to use the words

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

‘‘ruthenium,’’ ‘‘rhodium,’’ or ‘‘osmium,’’

or any abbreviations thereof, in a way

likely to deceive purchasers as to the

true composition of the product. The

JVC proposed adding a sentence stating

that platinum, iridium, palladium,

ruthenium, rhodium, and osmium are

the platinum group metals (‘‘PGM’’).

Because not every reader of the Guides

will be familiar with the term ‘‘platinum

group metals,’’ the Commission

proposes including the JVC’s

explanatory sentence in the Guides. The

JVC also proposed adding definitions of

‘‘platinum’’ and ‘‘quality mark.’’ The

Commission believes that the proposed

definition of platinum is confusing

(because it defines platinum, which is

an element, as an alloy). The proposed

definition of quality mark is

unnecessary because that term is

defined elsewhere in the Guides.

B. Suggested Provisions for Platinum

Products

1. Proposals Based on the Voluntary

Product Standards

In the Guides for the Jewelry Industry,

a Note states that markings in

compliance with Commercial Standard

CS 66–38 (now Voluntary Product

Standard 69–76) on the ‘‘Marking of

Articles Made Wholly or in Part of

Platinum’’ will be regarded ‘‘as among

those fulfilling the requirements relating

thereto which are contained in this

section.’’ 3 The JVC proposed

incorporating the Voluntary Product

Standard (‘‘VPS’’), with some changes,

into the Guides.

The VPS sets out requirements for

marking items as platinum. In section

3.5(1), the VPS states that an article

without solder may be marked

‘‘platinum’’ if 985 parts per thousand

are platinum group metals and 935 parts

per thousand are pure platinum. The

JVC proposed changing the requirement

of 985 parts per thousand platinum

group metals to 950 parts per thousand

pure platinum. The FRN solicited

comment on this proposed change.4

Fourteen comments addressed this

issue. Two comments opposed the

proposed standard, but offered no

substantive reasons.5 Twelve comments

favored the revision.6 The Platinum

Guild stated that ‘‘‘950 platinum’ is an

accepted standard worldwide [and]

[a]doption of this standard simplifies

the import and export of platinum

jewelry and allows the U.S. to properly

compete with others in the international

marketplace.’’ 7 This comment was

echoed verbatim by Johnson Matthey, a

major platinum producer.8 Because of

the overwhelming support for the

change, which harmonizes the Guides

with international practices, the

Commission proposes making this

change.9
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 27225

allowed by the gold and silver tolerances in the

National Stamping Act might not be unfair or

deceptive, the Commission does not propose

including this Note.

10 Jabel (47) noted at p.1, that ‘‘there’s an awful

lot of real (10% iridium platinum) platinum out

there that should be acknowledged.’’ This provision

addresses the marketing of this product.

11 VPS sections 3.5(2) and (3). 12 VPS section 3.5(4).

13 VPS section 5.

14 Comment 245, pp. 2–3. ‘‘Plat.,’’ ‘‘irid.,’’ ‘‘pall.,’’

‘‘ruth.,’’ ‘‘rhod.,’’ and ‘‘osmi.’’ could be replaced by

‘‘PT,’’ ‘‘IR,’’ ‘‘PA,’’ ‘‘RU,’’ ‘‘RH,’’ and ‘‘OS.’’

15 Comment 245, p.3.

16 Fasnacht (4); King (11); Estate (23); G&B (30);

Handy (62); McGee (112); Bridge (163); IJA (192);

Canada (209); Matthey (213); and MJSA (226).

17 Comment 229, p.10.

The JVC also suggested including in

the Guides two other sections of the

VPS that state, for an article with 950

parts per thousand platinum group

metals but less than 950 parts pure

platinum, that other platinum group

metals in the article be disclosed in the

mark.10 If the platinum is 750 parts or

more, the next predominate metal

should be named (e.g., Irid-Plat, for an

item containing 90% platinum and 10%

iridium). If the platinum is less than 750

parts (but at least 500 parts pure

platinum), all the other platinum group

metals should be named, preceded by a

number indicating the amount in parts

per thousand of that metal (e.g., 600

platinum-350 iridium).11

The Commission is seeking comment

on whether it should adopt these

sections as safe harbor provisions (i.e.,

as examples of markings and

descriptions that are not considered

unfair or deceptive). The Commission

asks that commenters address whether

the marking of an item containing

between 750 and 950 parts platinum

(e.g., Irid-Plat), will be understood by

consumers or whether it will be

confusing. The Commission is

especially interested in how consumers

will interpret a marking where the next

predominate metal precedes the word

platinum. The Commission also solicits

comment on the need for separate

guidance for items containing between

750 and 950 parts pure platinum and

items containing between 500 and 750

parts pure platinum. The Commission is

considering one safe harbor provision

for all items containing less than 950

parts pure platinum, that would

recommend naming all platinum group

metals in the item, preceded by a

number indicating the amount in parts

per thousand of that metal. This change

may simplify Commission guidance and

provide greater information to

consumers about the amount of

platinum and other platinum group

metals in the item. The Commission

requests comment on this approach. The JVC also proposed including a

section that states that no article

containing fewer than 500 parts per

thousand of pure platinum shall be

marked ‘‘platinum.’’ This proposal

differs from the VPS section, which

states that such an article can be marked

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

‘‘rhodium,’’ or ‘‘osmium’’ (whichever

predominates in the article) if the article

consists of 950 parts per thousand of

platinum group metals.12 There was no

comment on this section. The

Commission believes that referring to an

article that contains less than 500 parts

pure platinum as ‘‘platinum,’’ without

qualification, may be deceptive. The

Commission does not believe that it

would be deceptive to mark the item

with the name of the predominate metal

in the item. The Commission

recognizes, however, that the

predominate metal in such an item may

be platinum (e.g., 480 platinum, 250

palladium, 220 iridium). Although the

Commission proposes including the

provision, in the form it appears in the

VPS, as a safe harbor provision in the

Guides, it solicits comment on whether

the Guides should address separately

the situation where an item contains

less than 500 parts pure platinum, but

platinum is still the predominate metal.

2. Other Proposals

The Commission received a request

for an advisory opinion from the JVC

and Platinum Guild International on

November 30, 1995. The JVC and

Platinum Guild International requested

that the Commission advise that the

following markings or descriptions

would not be considered deceptive:

PT850 or 850 Plat; PT900 or 900 Plat;

PT950 or 950 Plat; and PT999 or 999

Plat. The minimum content for

platinum would be 850 parts per

thousand. The JVC and Platinum Guild

International state that these markings

are similar to markings for gold jewelry

and would be more understandable than

the markings suggested in the VPS.

They also state that these markings are

used in Japan and Switzerland.

The request differs from the scheme of

marking that is contained in the

Voluntary Product Standard, described

above. For items with less than 950

parts pure platinum, the other

component platinum group metals

would not be disclosed. Under this

scheme of markings, it is unclear how

products containing less than 850 parts

platinum would be described. The

Commission solicits comment on these

issues and the costs and benefits of

these markings relative to those in the

VPS.

3. Abbreviations and Trademarks

The JVC proposed including a section

from the VPS describing the

‘‘recognized abbreviations’’ for each of

the platinum group metals (platinum,

iridium, palladium, ruthenium,

rhodium and osmium).13 Each is a fourletter abbreviation. The Platinum Guild

suggested that these abbreviations be

changed to permit the use of two letter

abbreviations.14 The Guild stated that

jewelry manufacturers have said that

‘‘the marking requirements and long

metal abbreviations are a deterrent to

entering the marketplace with a product

such as ‘585 PLAT 365 PALL.’ Shorter

abbreviations would be a real help to

the platinum segment of the jewelry

industry, i.e., ‘585 PT.’ ’’15

The two letter abbreviations are the

same as those listed in the periodic

chart of the elements, but the four-letter

abbreviations are more likely to be

understood by consumers with no

knowledge of chemistry. However, in

response to the comments, the

Commission proposes including a

provision that states that the four-letter

abbreviations are preferred, but that the

use of two-letter abbreviations on

articles that consist of more than two

platinum group metals would not be

objectionable. Comments on this

proposal and on whether two-letter

abbreviations should be acceptable in

all situations are desired.

The JVC also recommended including

in the Guides the VPS section that

requires that, if a platinum quality mark

appears on an article, the trademark of

the manufacturer must also appear. The

eleven pertinent comments discussing

this proposal all favored requiring a

trademark on quality-marked

platinum.16 However, most gave no

reason. Platinum is not covered by the

National Stamping Act, which requires

that an article that is stamped with a

quality mark indicating that it is made

of gold or silver, also bear a trademark

of the manufacturer or importer. Preston

stated that the Commission would be

‘‘the next logical Federal

authority * * * to close the trade mark

stamping gap for platinum products’’

and that this requirement would ‘‘help

maintain uniformly high product

standards by causing manufacturers,

importers, or sellers who stamp

‘‘platinum’’ on their products to identify

themselves.’’ 17

The purpose of the Guides, however,

is not to ‘‘maintain uniformly high

product standards’’ but rather to prevent

unfairness and deception. It is neither

deceptive nor unfair to mark an item as
27226 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

18 If there are problems with the product, the

consumer can seek assistance from the seller of the

item (probably a retailer who in turn may know, or

seek assistance from, the manufacturer of the item).

19 Comment 229, p.9; Jabel (47) p.1 (stating,

‘‘How were these standards established? For wear?

For weight? For appearance?’’); Canada (209) p.4

(stating that the proposed standard ‘‘deserves

further study,’’ and noting that ‘‘there is industry

interest for other platinum products with

approximately 585 parts platinum per 1000 parts

metal’’).

20 Phillips (204) p.1 (stating that ‘‘some standard

for platinum filled needs to be established’’); Bruce

(218) p.9 (stating that ‘‘platinum-filled’’ products

may have overseas potential and that it would be

best ‘‘to have standards set, so that when the

opportunity comes, the material will be covered’’).

21 Bales (156) p.9.

22 G&B (30) p.8.

23 Comment 27, p.5.

24 Estate (23); Schwartz (52); Handy (62); and

MJSA (226).

25 Leach (257).

26 Comment 249, p.4; ArtCarved (155) p.4 (stating

that a ‘‘coating thickness’’ standard would be more

appropriate than a weight standard).

27 PGI (245) p.2 and Matthey (213) p.2 (both

stating that electroplating, or chemical deposition of

platinum, although currently not a factor in the

marketplace, ‘‘may need to be addressed in future

guides’’).

28PGI (245) p.2; Matthey (213) pp.2–3.

29Comment 226, p.6.

30Estate (23); Handy (62); G&B (30); and Jabel

(47).

31Comment 209, p.4.

32Comment 27, p.5.

33Section 23.8(a)(2) of the Guides deals with

quality marks on products that are a combination

of two or more metals of similar surface appearance.

This section provides that ‘‘each quality mark

should be closely accompanied by an identification

of the part or parts to which the mark is

applicable.’’ The Commission has determined that

the guidance provided in this section will prevent

deception.

platinum but not to identify the

trademark of the manufacturer.18 Hence,

the Commission has not included in the

Guides a requirement that the trademark

must accompany any platinum quality

mark.

Finally, the JVC proposed including

the list of ‘‘exemptions’’ (e.g., joint,

catches, etc.) to which the quality mark

is deemed not to apply. The

Commission proposes adding a note to

the section stating that a list of

exemptions can be found in the

appendix.

C. Suggested Provisions for PlatinumFilled Products

The JVC proposed including a

subsection on ‘‘platinum-filled’’ or

‘‘platinum overlay’’ (i.e., platinumplated) products. The FRN asked

whether a standard should be

established for platinum-filled,

platinum overlay, or platinum-clad

products and whether a standard that

the plating constitute at least 1/20th of

the weight of the entire article would be

appropriate.

In response to this question, Preston

stated that platinum-filled and platinum

overlay are not yet produced

commercially by the platinum industry.

Preston also stated that since these

products may be introduced in the

future, the JVC’s Platinum

subcommittee, ‘‘[i]n the absence of

carefully explored standards * * *

arbitrarily copied the technology and

standards for similar products in the

gold industry.’’ 19

Some comments stated that a standard

should be established.20 One noted that

‘‘if [platinum plating] is currently being

done, it should have the same

regulations as gold coated products.’’ 21

However, another stated the same terms

should not be used for gold and

platinum.22 Alexander Korbelak stated

that the term ‘‘platinum-filled’’ was

deceptive.23 Others simply answered the

question in the FRN ‘‘yes’’ 24 or ‘‘no.’’ 25

Sheaffer commented that ‘‘a standard

should be established for platinum

plating (regardless of how applied),’’ but

favored a standard specifying minimum

fineness and thickness. Sheaffer stated

that a standard based on a weight ratio

‘‘will encourage the production of

inferior articles lacking strength and

rigidity as the thickness and, thus, the

cost of the plate can readily be reduced

by use of a very thin base material.’’ 26

The Platinum Guild and Johnson

Matthey both favored the proposed

standard, noting that it ‘‘will assure that

a properly manufactured product will

be durable and have a reasonable

precious metal content.’’ 27

Because the comments indicate that

platinum-filled products are not

currently being marketed, there are no

deceptive practices occurring.

Moreover, there appears to be little

consensus on what standard would best

meet consumer expectations. Thus, the

Commission does not propose including

a provision for this product in the

Guides at this time. Future marketers of

such products could be guided by the

provisions that apply to gold- and

silver-plated products. The

Commission, however, solicits comment

on whether there is a need to address

platinum-filled products in the Guides

at this time, and if so, why.

D. Proposals for Solder-Filled Platinum

Chain

The JVC proposed adding a provision

on solder-filled platinum chain. The

FRN solicited comment on whether a

standard of 850 parts per thousand pure

platinum is appropriate.

The Platinum Guild and Johnson

Matthey both noted that Japan, which

consumes the greatest amount of

platinum jewelry in the world, uses the

850 standard for platinum chain. They

stated that the 850 standard is

appropriate, ‘‘whether solder filled or

solid wire is used in the manufacture of

the product,’’ and noted that

‘‘Internationally, little solder filled wire

is used * * * .’’ Both also stated that a

standard of ‘‘850 platinum’’ for chain

products ‘‘will allow the U.S.

manufacturer to compete more fairly in

the world marketplace.’’ 28 MJSA stated

that the proposed 850 standard for

platinum chain ‘‘is consistent with

existing industry standards and

practices.’’ 29 Other comments simply

approved the proposed standard.30

Canada commented that ‘‘in Canada no

specific standard is advised as the

question is under review.’’ 31 Korbelak

stated that such a product should be

designated ‘‘solder-filled platinum.’’ 32

Because the comments indicate that

the proposed standard reflects existing

standards both in the U.S. and abroad,

the Commission proposes including this

standard, as a safe harbor, in the Guides.

E. Proposals for Platinum in

Combination with Gold Products

Finally, the JVC recommended

including a section, adapted from the

Voluntary Products Standard, providing

that an article in which platinum is

combined with gold so that they are

‘‘visually separable and easily

distinguishable one from the other,’’

may have the term ‘‘platinum’’ applied

followed by a karat mark. However, the

combination of platinum and gold is

adequately covered in the Guides by the

respective sections on platinum and

gold and by the section on quality

marks.33 Thus, the Commission has

concluded that it is unnecessary to

include this section in the revised

Guides.

III. Request for Comment

The Commission seeks public

comment on section 23.7 of the Guides

and all of the proposed changes

discussed above. The Commission also

requests comment on the following

specific questions:

1. Do products with less than 950

parts per thousand pure platinum have

the same qualities and characteristics as

products with larger amounts of

platinum?

2. Products consisting of between 750

and 950 parts per 1000 pure platinum

may be marked ‘‘platinum’’ provided

that the name of the next predominant

PGM precedes the word platinum.

Products consisting of between 500 and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 27227

750 parts per 1000 pure platinum may

be marked ‘‘platinum’’ provided that all

PGM in the product are marked and

preceded by a number indicating the

amount of the metal in parts per

thousand. Should the guidance for all

products consisting of less than 950

parts pure platinum be the same? If so,

why? What are the reasons for having

different standards for the products?

3. For products consisting of less than

950 parts pure platinum, what are the

benefits and costs of marking each PGM

contained in the product? Should the

amount of each metal, in parts per

thousand, be disclosed?

4. Should products with less than 950

parts pure platinum be marked with

only the amount of pure platinum

contained in the product (e.g., PLAT

900)? Do consumers understand this

marking? Would percentage markings

(e.g., 90% Plat) be preferable and

feasible?

5. Are there any international

standards for marking platinum

products? Should the Guides follow

these standards? Why or why not?

6. Should products with less than 500

parts per thousand pure platinum be

marked ‘‘platinum’’? Why or why not?

7. Should platinum and other PGM be

described with two letter abbreviations?

Do consumers understand two letter

abbreviations?

8. Is there a need for Commission

guidance regarding descriptions of

platinum-filled, platinum overlay or

platinum-clad products? If so, how

should these products be addressed?

9. Should chain articles containing

solder-filled wire and consisting of at

least 850 parts per thousand pure

platinum be marked ‘‘platinum’’? Why

or why not?

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 23

Advertising; Jewelry; Trade practices.

Accordingly, the Commission

proposes to amend Title 16 of the Code

of Federal Regulations as follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 23

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 6, 5, 38 Stat. 721, 719; 15

U.S.C. 46, 45.

2. Section 23.7 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 23.7 Misuse of the words ‘‘platinum,’’

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

‘‘rhodium,’’ and ‘‘osmium.’’

(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the

words ‘‘platinum,’’ ‘‘iridium,’’

‘‘palladium,’’ ‘‘ruthenium,’’ ‘‘rhodium,’’

or ‘‘osmium,’’ or any abbreviation to

mark or describe all or part of an

industry product if such marking or

description misrepresents the product’s

true composition. The Platinum Group

Metals (PGM) are Platinum, Iridium,

Palladium, Ruthenium, Rhodium, and

Osmium.

(b) The following are examples of

markings and descriptions that are not

considered unfair or deceptive:

(1) The following four-letter

abbreviations for each of the PGM may

be used for quality marks on articles

consisting of one or two PGM: ‘‘Plat.’’

for Platinum; ‘‘Irid.’’ for Iridium; ‘‘Pall.’’

for Palladium; ‘‘Ruth.’’ for Ruthenium;

‘‘Rhod.’’ for Rhodium; and ‘‘Osmi.’’ for

Osmium. If an article contains more

than two PGM, the following

abbreviations may be used for quality

marks to disclose three or more

constituent metals: ‘‘Pt.’’ for Platinum;

‘‘Ir.’’ for Iridium; ‘‘Pd.’’ for Palladium;

‘‘Ru.’’ for Ruthenium; ‘‘Rh.’’ for

Rhodium; and ‘‘Os.’’ for Osmium.

(2) An industry product consisting of

at least 950 parts per thousand pure

Platinum may be marked ‘‘Platinum.’’

(3) An industry product consisting of

at least 950 parts per thousand PGM, of

which at least 750 parts per thousand

are pure Platinum, may be marked

‘‘Platinum’’ provided that the name or

abbreviation of the PGM member that is

the next largest constituent of the alloy

immediately precedes the word

‘‘Platinum.’’

(4) An industry product consisting of

at least 950 parts per thousand PGM, of

which at least 500 parts per thousand

(but less than 750) are pure Platinum,

may be marked ‘‘Platinum’’ provided

that the mark of each PGM constituent

is preceded by a number indicating the

amount in parts per thousand of each

PGM, as, for example, ‘‘600 Plat.-350

Irid.,’’ ‘‘700 Platinum-250 Iridium,’’ or

‘‘500 Pt.-250 Pd.-200 Ir.’’

(5) An industry product consisting of

at least 950 parts per thousand PGM, of

which less than 500 parts per thousand

are pure Platinum, may be marked with

the name or abbreviation of the PGM

member that predominates in the

product, provided that the mark is

preceded by a number indicating the

amount in parts per thousand of the

PGM. Such product should not be

marked with the name or abbreviation

for platinum.

(6) Chain articles containing solderfilled wire and consisting of at least 850

parts per thousand pure Platinum may

be marked ‘‘Platinum.’’

Note to § 23.7: Exemptions recognized in

the assay of platinum industry products are

listed in the Appendix to Part 23.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

Note: The following appendix will not

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

APPENDIX—LIST OF COMMENTERS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation No. Commenter

ArtCarved ............................................................................................ 155 ArtCarved.

Bales .................................................................................................... 156 Bales Diamond Center & Mfg. Inc.

Bridge .................................................................................................. 163 Ben Bridge.

Bruce ................................................................................................... 218 Donald Bruce & Co.

Canada ................................................................................................ 209 Consumer & Corporate Affairs Canada.

Estate .................................................................................................. 23 Estate Jewelers.

Fasnacht .............................................................................................. 4 Fasnacht’s Jewelry.

G&B ..................................................................................................... 30 Gudmundson & Buyck Jewelers.

Handy .................................................................................................. 62 Handy & Harman.

IJA ....................................................................................................... 192 Indiana Jewelers Association.

Jabel .................................................................................................... 47 Jabel Inc.

JCWA .................................................................................................. 216 Japan Clock & Watch Association.

King ..................................................................................................... 11 King’s Jewelry.

Korbelak .............................................................................................. 27 A. Korbelak.

Leach ................................................................................................... 257 Leach & Garner Co.

Matthey ................................................................................................ 213 Johnson Matthey.

McGee ................................................................................................. 112 McGee & Co.

MJSA ................................................................................................... 226 Manufacturing Jewelers & Silversmiths of America, Inc.

PGI ...................................................................................................... 245 Platinum Guild Int’l U.S.A. Jewelry, Inc.
27228 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

APPENDIX—LIST OF COMMENTERS AND ABBREVIATIONS—Continued

Abbreviation No. Commenter

Phillips ................................................................................................. 204 Phillips Jewelers, Inc.

Preston ................................................................................................ 229 F.J. Preston & Son Inc.

Schwartz .............................................................................................. 52 Charles Schwartz.

[FR Doc. 96–13522 Filed 5–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P