[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27224-27228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13522]




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

[[Page 27224]]



FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR PART 23


Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Industries

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') is 
requesting public comments on proposed revisions to Sec. 23.7 of the 
Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Industries (``the 
Guides''). Section 23.7 of the Guides addresses claims made about 
platinum products. All interested persons are hereby given notice of 
the opportunity to submit written data, views and arguments concerning 
this proposal.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted until August 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade 
Commission, Room H-159, Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20580. Comments about these proposed changes to the Guides should 
be identified as ``Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter 
Industry--16 CFR Part 23--Comment.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio or Laura J. 
DeMartino, Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580, 
(202) 326-2966 or (202) 326-3030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    In a separate Federal Register Notice (``FRN''), the Commission 
announced revisions to its Guides for the Jewelry Industry, renamed 
Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Industries, 16 CFR 
Part 23.<SUP>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.<SUP>2 The 
Commission also discusses its proposed changes to this section. The 
Commission solicits comment on this provision of the Guides and the 
proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission published a FRN soliciting public comment on 
amendments to the Jewelry Guides, including revisions to section 
23.7 regarding platinum products. 57 FR 24996 (June 12, 1992). That 
FRN was published in response to a petition proposing changes, 
submitted by the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (``JVC'').
    \2\ 57 FR 24996 (June 12, 1992). The comments are cited to by an 
abbreviation of the commenter's name and the document number 
assigned to the comment on the public record. A list of the 
commenters, including the abbreviations and document numbers used to 
identify each commenter, is attached as an appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of Comments

A. Background

    Section 23.7 of the Guides for the Jewelry Industry states that it 
is an unfair trade practice to use the words ``platinum,'' ``iridium,'' 
``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' or ``osmium,'' or any 
abbreviations thereof, in a way likely to deceive purchasers as to the 
true composition of the product. The JVC proposed adding a sentence 
stating that platinum, iridium, palladium, ruthenium, rhodium, and 
osmium are the platinum group metals (``PGM''). Because not every 
reader of the Guides will be familiar with the term ``platinum group 
metals,'' the Commission proposes including the JVC's explanatory 
sentence in the Guides. The JVC also proposed adding definitions of 
``platinum'' and ``quality mark.'' The Commission believes that the 
proposed definition of platinum is confusing (because it defines 
platinum, which is an element, as an alloy). The proposed definition of 
quality mark is unnecessary because that term is defined elsewhere in 
the Guides.

B. Suggested Provisions for Platinum Products

1. Proposals Based on the Voluntary Product Standards
    In the Guides for the Jewelry Industry, a Note states that markings 
in compliance with Commercial Standard CS 66-38 (now Voluntary Product 
Standard 69-76) on the ``Marking of Articles Made Wholly or in Part of 
Platinum'' will be regarded ``as among those fulfilling the 
requirements relating thereto which are contained in this section.'' 
<SUP>3 The JVC proposed incorporating the Voluntary Product Standard 
(``VPS''), with some changes, into the Guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\  Commercial Standards were promulgated by the U.S. 
Department of Commerce and administered by the National Bureau of 
Standards (``NBS''). Later renamed by the NBS as Voluntary Product 
Standards, they had the same legal significance as FTC guides. The 
Department of Commerce and the NBS, which is now called the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, withdrew these and all other 
VPS, as an economy measure, on January 20, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The VPS sets out requirements for marking items as platinum. In 
section 3.5(1), the VPS states that an article without solder may be 
marked ``platinum'' if 985 parts per thousand are platinum group metals 
and 935 parts per thousand are pure platinum. The JVC proposed changing 
the requirement of 985 parts per thousand platinum group metals to 950 
parts per thousand pure platinum. The FRN solicited comment on this 
proposed change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The VPS provided, for the various types of PGM products, 
different ``parts per thousand'' requirements for products with 
solder and without solder. The JVC proposal dropped these references 
to solder (except as to a proposed new product, chain articles 
containing solder-filled wire, discussed infra). There was no 
comment opposing this change. The Commission solicits comment on 
whether references to solder should be included in the Guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourteen comments addressed this issue. Two comments opposed the 
proposed standard, but offered no substantive reasons.\5\ Twelve 
comments favored the revision.\6\ The Platinum Guild stated that ```950 
platinum' is an accepted standard worldwide [and] [a]doption of this 
standard simplifies the import and export of platinum jewelry and 
allows the U.S. to properly compete with others in the international 
marketplace.'' \7\ This comment was echoed verbatim by Johnson Matthey, 
a major platinum producer.\8\ Because of the overwhelming support for 
the change, which harmonizes the Guides with international practices, 
the Commission proposes making this change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Korbelak (27) p.5 (stating that ``platinum is platinum'') 
and G&B (30) p.8 (stating that platinum should remain at a ``high, 
high, standard'').
    \6\ Fasnacht (4); Estate (23); Jabel (47); Handy (62); ArtCarved 
(155); IJA (192); Canada (209); Matthey (213); MJSA (226); Preston 
(229); PGI (245); and Leach (257).
    \7\ Comment 245, p.2 (stating further that other countries 
``produce '950 platinum' alloys with oftentimes superior casting and 
working characteristics,'' and that ``[t]he U.S. needs these 
materials to be at the cutting edge of jewelry technology from a 
materials standpoint'').
    \8\ Matthey (213) p.2; ArtCarved (155) p.4 (stating that ``950'' 
is used internationally and should be the U.S. standard); Canada 
(209) p.4 (stating that the proposal ``would align the [Guides] with 
the current Canadian standard''); JCWA (216) p.3 (stating that 
``lowering the minimum to a level of grade 900/1000 would better 
reflect accepted international practice'').
    \9\ The National Stamping Act, which establishes tolerance for 
gold and silver, does not apply to platinum. The JVC proposed 
including a Note stating that the ``actual Platinum content of an 
industry product shall not be less than the Platinum content 
indicated by the quality marks.'' However, because extremely minor 
variances of the type allowed by the gold and silver tolerances in 
the National Stamping Act might not be unfair or deceptive, the 
Commission does not propose including this Note.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 27225]]

    The JVC also suggested including in the Guides two other sections 
of the VPS that state, for an article with 950 parts per thousand 
platinum group metals but less than 950 parts pure platinum, that other 
platinum group metals in the article be disclosed in the mark.\10\ If 
the platinum is 750 parts or more, the next predominate metal should be 
named (e.g., Irid-Plat, for an item containing 90% platinum and 10% 
iridium). If the platinum is less than 750 parts (but at least 500 
parts pure platinum), all the other platinum group metals should be 
named, preceded by a number indicating the amount in parts per thousand 
of that metal (e.g., 600 platinum-350 iridium).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Jabel (47) noted at p.1, that ``there's an awful lot of 
real (10% iridium platinum) platinum out there that should be 
acknowledged.'' This provision addresses the marketing of this 
product.
    \11\ VPS sections 3.5(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is seeking comment on whether it should adopt these 
sections as safe harbor provisions (i.e., as examples of markings and 
descriptions that are not considered unfair or deceptive). The 
Commission asks that commenters address whether the marking of an item 
containing between 750 and 950 parts platinum (e.g., Irid-Plat), will 
be understood by consumers or whether it will be confusing. The 
Commission is especially interested in how consumers will interpret a 
marking where the next predominate metal precedes the word platinum.
    The Commission also solicits comment on the need for separate 
guidance for items containing between 750 and 950 parts pure platinum 
and items containing between 500 and 750 parts pure platinum. The 
Commission is considering one safe harbor provision for all items 
containing less than 950 parts pure platinum, that would recommend 
naming all platinum group metals in the item, preceded by a number 
indicating the amount in parts per thousand of that metal. This change 
may simplify Commission guidance and provide greater information to 
consumers about the amount of platinum and other platinum group metals 
in the item. The Commission requests comment on this approach.
    The JVC also proposed including a section that states that no 
article containing fewer than 500 parts per thousand of pure platinum 
shall be marked ``platinum.'' This proposal differs from the VPS 
section, which states that such an article can be marked ``iridium,'' 
``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' or ``osmium'' (whichever 
predominates in the article) if the article consists of 950 parts per 
thousand of platinum group metals.\12\ There was no comment on this 
section. The Commission believes that referring to an article that 
contains less than 500 parts pure platinum as ``platinum,'' without 
qualification, may be deceptive. The Commission does not believe that 
it would be deceptive to mark the item with the name of the predominate 
metal in the item. The Commission recognizes, however, that the 
predominate metal in such an item may be platinum (e.g., 480 platinum, 
250 palladium, 220 iridium). Although the Commission proposes including 
the provision, in the form it appears in the VPS, as a safe harbor 
provision in the Guides, it solicits comment on whether the Guides 
should address separately the situation where an item contains less 
than 500 parts pure platinum, but platinum is still the predominate 
metal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ VPS section 3.5(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Other Proposals
    The Commission received a request for an advisory opinion from the 
JVC and Platinum Guild International on November 30, 1995. The JVC and 
Platinum Guild International requested that the Commission advise that 
the following markings or descriptions would not be considered 
deceptive: PT850 or 850 Plat; PT900 or 900 Plat; PT950 or 950 Plat; and 
PT999 or 999 Plat. The minimum content for platinum would be 850 parts 
per thousand. The JVC and Platinum Guild International state that these 
markings are similar to markings for gold jewelry and would be more 
understandable than the markings suggested in the VPS. They also state 
that these markings are used in Japan and Switzerland.
    The request differs from the scheme of marking that is contained in 
the Voluntary Product Standard, described above. For items with less 
than 950 parts pure platinum, the other component platinum group metals 
would not be disclosed. Under this scheme of markings, it is unclear 
how products containing less than 850 parts platinum would be 
described. The Commission solicits comment on these issues and the 
costs and benefits of these markings relative to those in the VPS.
3. Abbreviations and Trademarks
    The JVC proposed including a section from the VPS describing the 
``recognized abbreviations'' for each of the platinum group metals 
(platinum, iridium, palladium, ruthenium, rhodium and osmium).<SUP>13 
Each is a four-letter abbreviation. The Platinum Guild suggested that 
these abbreviations be changed to permit the use of two letter 
abbreviations.<SUP>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.' ''<SUP>15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\  VPS section 5.
    \14\  Comment 245, pp. 2-3. ``Plat.,'' ``irid.,'' ``pall.,'' 
``ruth.,'' ``rhod.,'' and ``osmi.'' could be replaced by ``PT,'' 
``IR,'' ``PA,'' ``RU,'' ``RH,'' and ``OS.''
    \15\  Comment 245, p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two letter abbreviations are the same as those listed in the 
periodic chart of the elements, but the four-letter abbreviations are 
more likely to be understood by consumers with no knowledge of 
chemistry. However, in response to the comments, the Commission 
proposes including a provision that states that the four-letter 
abbreviations are preferred, but that the use of two-letter 
abbreviations on articles that consist of more than two platinum group 
metals would not be objectionable. Comments on this proposal and on 
whether two-letter abbreviations should be acceptable in all situations 
are desired.
    The JVC also recommended including in the Guides the VPS section 
that requires that, if a platinum quality mark appears on an article, 
the trademark of the manufacturer must also appear. The eleven 
pertinent comments discussing this proposal all favored requiring a 
trademark on quality-marked platinum.<SUP>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.'' <SUP>17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\  Fasnacht (4); King (11); Estate (23); G&B (30); Handy 
(62); McGee (112); Bridge (163); IJA (192); Canada (209); Matthey 
(213); and MJSA (226).
    \17\  Comment 229, p.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the Guides, however, is not to ``maintain uniformly 
high product standards'' but rather to prevent unfairness and 
deception. It is neither deceptive nor unfair to mark an item as

[[Page 27226]]

platinum but not to identify the trademark of the manufacturer.<SUP>18 
Hence, the Commission has not included in the Guides a requirement that 
the trademark must accompany any platinum quality mark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\  If there are problems with the product, the consumer can 
seek assistance from the seller of the item (probably a retailer who 
in turn may know, or seek assistance from, the manufacturer of the 
item).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the JVC proposed including the list of ``exemptions'' 
(e.g., joint, catches, etc.) to which the quality mark is deemed not to 
apply. The Commission proposes adding a note to the section stating 
that a list of exemptions can be found in the appendix.

C. Suggested Provisions for Platinum-Filled Products

    The JVC proposed including a subsection on ``platinum-filled'' or 
``platinum overlay'' (i.e., platinum-plated) products. The FRN asked 
whether a standard should be established for platinum-filled, platinum 
overlay, or platinum-clad products and whether a standard that the 
plating constitute at least 1/20th of the weight of the entire article 
would be appropriate.
    In response to this question, Preston stated that platinum-filled 
and platinum overlay are not yet produced commercially by the platinum 
industry. Preston also stated that since these products may be 
introduced in the future, the JVC's Platinum subcommittee, ``[i]n the 
absence of carefully explored standards * * * arbitrarily copied the 
technology and standards for similar products in the gold industry.'' 
<SUP>19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\  Comment 229, p.9; Jabel (47) p.1 (stating, ``How were 
these standards established? For wear? For weight? For 
appearance?''); Canada (209) p.4 (stating that the proposed standard 
``deserves further study,'' and noting that ``there is industry 
interest for other platinum products with approximately 585 parts 
platinum per 1000 parts metal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some comments stated that a standard should be established.<SUP>20 
One noted that ``if [platinum plating] is currently being done, it 
should have the same regulations as gold coated products.'' <SUP>21 
However, another stated the same terms should not be used for gold and 
platinum.<SUP>22 Alexander Korbelak stated that the term ``platinum-
filled'' was deceptive.<SUP>23 Others simply answered the question in 
the FRN ``yes'' <SUP>24 or ``no.'' <SUP>25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\  Phillips (204) p.1 (stating that ``some standard for 
platinum filled needs to be established''); Bruce (218) p.9 (stating 
that ``platinum-filled'' products may have overseas potential and 
that it would be best ``to have standards set, so that when the 
opportunity comes, the material will be covered'').
    \21\  Bales (156) p.9.
    \22\  G&B (30) p.8.
    \23\  Comment 27, p.5.
    \24\  Estate (23); Schwartz (52); Handy (62); and MJSA (226).
    \25\  Leach (257).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sheaffer commented that ``a standard should be established for 
platinum plating (regardless of how applied),'' but favored a standard 
specifying minimum fineness and thickness. Sheaffer stated that a 
standard based on a weight ratio ``will encourage the production of 
inferior articles lacking strength and rigidity as the thickness and, 
thus, the cost of the plate can readily be reduced by use of a very 
thin base material.'' <SUP>26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\  Comment 249, p.4; ArtCarved (155) p.4 (stating that a 
``coating thickness'' standard would be more appropriate than a 
weight standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Platinum Guild and Johnson Matthey both favored the proposed 
standard, noting that it ``will assure that a properly manufactured 
product will be durable and have a reasonable precious metal content.'' 
<SUP>27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\  PGI (245) p.2 and Matthey (213) p.2 (both stating that 
electroplating, or chemical deposition of platinum, although 
currently not a factor in the marketplace, ``may need to be 
addressed in future guides'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the comments indicate that platinum-filled products are not 
currently being marketed, there are no deceptive practices occurring. 
Moreover, there appears to be little consensus on what standard would 
best meet consumer expectations. Thus, the Commission does not propose 
including a provision for this product in the Guides at this time. 
Future marketers of such products could be guided by the provisions 
that apply to gold- and silver-plated products. The Commission, 
however, solicits comment on whether there is a need to address 
platinum-filled products in the Guides at this time, and if so, why.

D. Proposals for Solder-Filled Platinum Chain

    The JVC proposed adding a provision on solder-filled platinum 
chain. The FRN solicited comment on whether a standard of 850 parts per 
thousand pure platinum is appropriate.
    The Platinum Guild and Johnson Matthey both noted that Japan, which 
consumes the greatest amount of platinum jewelry in the world, uses the 
850 standard for platinum chain. They stated that the 850 standard is 
appropriate, ``whether solder filled or solid wire is used in the 
manufacture of the product,'' and noted that ``Internationally, little 
solder filled wire is used * * * .'' Both also stated that a standard 
of ``850 platinum'' for chain products ``will allow the U.S. 
manufacturer to compete more fairly in the world marketplace.'' <SUP>28 
MJSA stated that the proposed 850 standard for platinum chain ``is 
consistent with existing industry standards and practices.'' <SUP>29 
Other comments simply approved the proposed standard.<SUP>30 Canada 
commented that ``in Canada no specific standard is advised as the 
question is under review.'' <SUP>31 Korbelak stated that such a product 
should be designated ``solder-filled platinum.'' <SUP>32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ PGI (245) p.2; Matthey (213) pp.2-3.
    \29\ Comment 226, p.6.
    \30\ Estate (23); Handy (62); G&B (30); and Jabel (47).
    \31\ Comment 209, p.4.
    \32\ Comment 27, p.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the comments indicate that the proposed standard reflects 
existing standards both in the U.S. and abroad, the Commission proposes 
including this standard, as a safe harbor, in the Guides.

E. Proposals for Platinum in Combination with Gold Products

    Finally, the JVC recommended including a section, adapted from the 
Voluntary Products Standard, providing that an article in which 
platinum is combined with gold so that they are ``visually separable 
and easily distinguishable one from the other,'' may have the term 
``platinum'' applied followed by a karat mark. However, the combination 
of platinum and gold is adequately covered in the Guides by the 
respective sections on platinum and gold and by the section on quality 
marks.<SUP>33 Thus, the Commission has concluded that it is unnecessary 
to include this section in the revised Guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Section 23.8(a)(2) of the Guides deals with quality marks 
on products that are a combination of two or more metals of similar 
surface appearance. This section provides that ``each quality mark 
should be closely accompanied by an identification of the part or 
parts to which the mark is applicable.'' The Commission has 
determined that the guidance provided in this section will prevent 
deception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Request for Comment

    The Commission seeks public comment on section 23.7 of the Guides 
and all of the proposed changes discussed above. The Commission also 
requests comment on the following specific questions:
    1. Do products with less than 950 parts per thousand pure platinum 
have the same qualities and characteristics as products with larger 
amounts of platinum?
    2. Products consisting of between 750 and 950 parts per 1000 pure 
platinum may be marked ``platinum'' provided that the name of the next 
predominant PGM precedes the word platinum. Products consisting of 
between 500 and

[[Page 27227]]

750 parts per 1000 pure platinum may be marked ``platinum'' provided 
that all PGM in the product are marked and preceded by a number 
indicating the amount of the metal in parts per thousand. Should the 
guidance for all products consisting of less than 950 parts pure 
platinum be the same? If so, why? What are the reasons for having 
different standards for the products?
    3. For products consisting of less than 950 parts pure platinum, 
what are the benefits and costs of marking each PGM contained in the 
product? Should the amount of each metal, in parts per thousand, be 
disclosed?
    4. Should products with less than 950 parts pure platinum be marked 
with only the amount of pure platinum contained in the product (e.g., 
PLAT 900)? Do consumers understand this marking? Would percentage 
markings (e.g., 90% Plat) be preferable and feasible?
    5. Are there any international standards for marking platinum 
products? Should the Guides follow these standards? Why or why not?
    6. Should products with less than 500 parts per thousand pure 
platinum be marked ``platinum''? Why or why not?
    7. Should platinum and other PGM be described with two letter 
abbreviations? Do consumers understand two letter abbreviations?
    8. Is there a need for Commission guidance regarding descriptions 
of platinum-filled, platinum overlay or platinum-clad products? If so, 
how should these products be addressed?
    9. Should chain articles containing solder-filled wire and 
consisting of at least 850 parts per thousand pure platinum be marked 
``platinum''? Why or why not?

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 23

    Advertising; Jewelry; Trade practices.

    Accordingly, the Commission proposes to amend Title 16 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations as follows:
    1. The authority citation for Part 23 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 6, 5, 38 Stat. 721, 719; 15 U.S.C. 46, 45.

    2. Section 23.7 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.7  Misuse of the words ``platinum,'' ``iridium,'' 
``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' and ``osmium.''

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the words ``platinum,'' 
``iridium,'' ``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' or ``osmium,'' 
or any abbreviation to mark or describe all or part of an industry 
product if such marking or description misrepresents the product's true 
composition. The Platinum Group Metals (PGM) are Platinum, Iridium, 
Palladium, Ruthenium, Rhodium, and Osmium.
    (b) The following are examples of markings and descriptions that 
are not considered unfair or deceptive:
    (1) The following four-letter abbreviations for each of the PGM may 
be used for quality marks on articles consisting of one or two PGM: 
``Plat.'' for Platinum; ``Irid.'' for Iridium; ``Pall.'' for Palladium; 
``Ruth.'' for Ruthenium; ``Rhod.'' for Rhodium; and ``Osmi.'' for 
Osmium. If an article contains more than two PGM, the following 
abbreviations may be used for quality marks to disclose three or more 
constituent metals: ``Pt.'' for Platinum; ``Ir.'' for Iridium; ``Pd.'' 
for Palladium; ``Ru.'' for Ruthenium; ``Rh.'' for Rhodium; and ``Os.'' 
for Osmium.
    (2) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per 
thousand pure Platinum may be marked ``Platinum.''
    (3) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per 
thousand PGM, of which at least 750 parts per thousand are pure 
Platinum, may be marked ``Platinum'' provided that the name or 
abbreviation of the PGM member that is the next largest constituent of 
the alloy immediately precedes the word ``Platinum.''
    (4) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per 
thousand PGM, of which at least 500 parts per thousand (but less than 
750) are pure Platinum, may be marked ``Platinum'' provided that the 
mark of each PGM constituent is preceded by a number indicating the 
amount in parts per thousand of each PGM, as, for example, ``600 Plat.-
350 Irid.,'' ``700 Platinum-250 Iridium,'' or ``500 Pt.-250 Pd.-200 
Ir.''
    (5) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per 
thousand PGM, of which less than 500 parts per thousand are pure 
Platinum, may be marked with the name or abbreviation of the PGM member 
that predominates in the product, provided that the mark is preceded by 
a number indicating the amount in parts per thousand of the PGM. Such 
product should not be marked with the name or abbreviation for 
platinum.
    (6) Chain articles containing solder-filled wire and consisting of 
at least 850 parts per thousand pure Platinum may be marked 
``Platinum.''

    Note to Sec. 23.7: Exemptions recognized in the assay of 
platinum industry products are listed in the Appendix to Part 23.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

             Appendix--List of Commenters and Abbreviations             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Abbreviation               No.            Commenter         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArtCarved...........................    155  ArtCarved.                 
Bales...............................    156  Bales Diamond Center & Mfg.
                                              Inc.                      
Bridge..............................    163  Ben Bridge.                
Bruce...............................    218  Donald Bruce & Co.         
Canada..............................    209  Consumer & Corporate       
                                              Affairs Canada.           
Estate..............................     23  Estate Jewelers.           
Fasnacht............................      4  Fasnacht's Jewelry.        
G&B.................................     30  Gudmundson & Buyck         
                                              Jewelers.                 
Handy...............................     62  Handy & Harman.            
IJA.................................    192  Indiana Jewelers           
                                              Association.              
Jabel...............................     47  Jabel Inc.                 
JCWA................................    216  Japan Clock & Watch        
                                              Association.              
King................................     11  King's Jewelry.            
Korbelak............................     27  A. Korbelak.               
Leach...............................    257  Leach & Garner Co.         
Matthey.............................    213  Johnson Matthey.           
McGee...............................    112  McGee & Co.                
MJSA................................    226  Manufacturing Jewelers &   
                                              Silversmiths of America,  
                                              Inc.                      
PGI.................................    245  Platinum Guild Int'l U.S.A.
                                              Jewelry, Inc.             

[[Page 27228]]

                                                                        
Phillips............................    204  Phillips Jewelers, Inc.    
Preston.............................    229  F.J. Preston & Son Inc.    
Schwartz............................     52  Charles Schwartz.          
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 96-13522 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P