Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Industries

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') is

requesting public comments on proposed revisions to Sec. 23.7 of the

Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Industries (``the

Guides''). Section 23.7 of the Guides addresses claims made about

platinum products. All interested persons are hereby given notice of

the opportunity to submit written data, views and arguments concerning

this proposal.

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

ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room H-159, Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20580. Comments about these proposed changes to the Guides should

be identified as ``Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter

Industry--16 CFR Part 23--Comment.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio or Laura J.

DeMartino, Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580,

(202) 326-2966 or (202) 326-3030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

In a separate Federal Register Notice (``FRN''), the Commission

announced revisions to its Guides for the Jewelry Industry, renamed

Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter Industries, 16 CFR

Part 23.1 The Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals and Pewter

Industries (``the Guides'') address claims made about precious metals,

diamonds, gemstones and pearl products. The Commission did not revise

section 23.7 of the Guides for the Jewelry Industry, which addresses

claims made about platinum products. Industry members have indicated

the need to simplify current Commission guidance regarding claims that

a product is composed of platinum and bring this guidance into closer

accord with international standards. The Commission concluded, however,

that additional comment would be helpful to resolve certain issues.

Below, the Commission describes the comments discussing the marking of

platinum products, submitted in response to the prior FRN.2 The

Commission also discusses its proposed changes to this section. The

Commission solicits comment on this provision of the Guides and the

proposed changes.

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

\1\ The Commission published a FRN soliciting public comment on

amendments to the Jewelry Guides, including revisions to section

23.7 regarding platinum products. 57 FR 24996 (June 12, 1992). That

FRN was published in response to a petition proposing changes,

submitted by the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (``JVC'').

\2\ 57 FR 24996 (June 12, 1992). The comments are cited to by an

abbreviation of the commenter's name and the document number

assigned to the comment on the public record. A list of the

commenters, including the abbreviations and document numbers used to

identify each commenter, is attached as an appendix.

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

II. Analysis of Comments

A. Background

Section 23.7 of the Guides for the Jewelry Industry states that it

is an unfair trade practice to use the words ``platinum,'' ``iridium,''

``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' or ``osmium,'' or any

abbreviations thereof, in a way likely to deceive purchasers as to the

true composition of the product. The JVC proposed adding a sentence

stating that platinum, iridium, palladium, ruthenium, rhodium, and

osmium are the platinum group metals (``PGM''). Because not every

reader of the Guides will be familiar with the term ``platinum group

metals,'' the Commission proposes including the JVC's explanatory

sentence in the Guides. The JVC also proposed adding definitions of

``platinum'' and ``quality mark.'' The Commission believes that the

proposed definition of platinum is confusing (because it defines

platinum, which is an element, as an alloy). The proposed definition of

quality mark is unnecessary because that term is defined elsewhere in

the Guides.

B. Suggested Provisions for Platinum Products

1. Proposals Based on the Voluntary Product Standards

In the Guides for the Jewelry Industry, a Note states that markings

in compliance with Commercial Standard CS 66-38 (now Voluntary Product

Standard 69-76) on the ``Marking of Articles Made Wholly or in Part of

Platinum'' will be regarded ``as among those fulfilling the

requirements relating thereto which are contained in this section.''

3 The JVC proposed incorporating the Voluntary Product Standard

(``VPS''), with some changes, into the Guides.

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

\3\ Commercial Standards were promulgated by the U.S.

Department of Commerce and administered by the National Bureau of

Standards (``NBS''). Later renamed by the NBS as Voluntary Product

Standards, they had the same legal significance as FTC guides. The

Department of Commerce and the NBS, which is now called the National

Institute of Standards and Technology, withdrew these and all other

VPS, as an economy measure, on January 20, 1984.

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

The VPS sets out requirements for marking items as platinum. In

section 3.5(1), the VPS states that an article without solder may be

marked ``platinum'' if 985 parts per thousand are platinum group metals

and 935 parts per thousand are pure platinum. The JVC proposed changing

the requirement of 985 parts per thousand platinum group metals to 950

parts per thousand pure platinum. The FRN solicited comment on this

proposed change.\4\

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

\4\ The VPS provided, for the various types of PGM products,

different ``parts per thousand'' requirements for products with

solder and without solder. The JVC proposal dropped these references

to solder (except as to a proposed new product, chain articles

containing solder-filled wire, discussed infra). There was no

comment opposing this change. The Commission solicits comment on

whether references to solder should be included in the Guides.

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

Fourteen comments addressed this issue. Two comments opposed the

proposed standard, but offered no substantive reasons.\5\ Twelve

comments favored the revision.\6\ The Platinum Guild stated that ```950

platinum' is an accepted standard worldwide [and] [a]doption of this

standard simplifies the import and export of platinum jewelry and

allows the U.S. to properly compete with others in the international

marketplace.'' \7\ This comment was echoed verbatim by Johnson Matthey,

a major platinum producer.\8\ Because of the overwhelming support for

the change, which harmonizes the Guides with international practices,

the Commission proposes making this change.\9\

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

\5\ Korbelak (27) p.5 (stating that ``platinum is platinum'')

and G&B (30) p.8 (stating that platinum should remain at a ``high,

high, standard'').

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

(155); IJA (192); Canada (209); Matthey (213); MJSA (226); Preston

(229); PGI (245); and Leach (257).

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

``produce '950 platinum' alloys with oftentimes superior casting and

working characteristics,'' and that ``[t]he U.S. needs these

materials to be at the cutting edge of jewelry technology from a

materials standpoint'').

\8\ Matthey (213) p.2; ArtCarved (155) p.4 (stating that ``950''

is used internationally and should be the U.S. standard); Canada

(209) p.4 (stating that the proposal ``would align the [Guides] with

the current Canadian standard''); JCWA (216) p.3 (stating that

``lowering the minimum to a level of grade 900/1000 would better

reflect accepted international practice'').

\9\ The National Stamping Act, which establishes tolerance for

gold and silver, does not apply to platinum. The JVC proposed

including a Note stating that the ``actual Platinum content of an

industry product shall not be less than the Platinum content

indicated by the quality marks.'' However, because extremely minor

variances of the type allowed by the gold and silver tolerances in

the National Stamping Act might not be unfair or deceptive, the

Commission does not propose including this Note.

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

[[Page 27225]]

The JVC also suggested including in the Guides two other sections

of the VPS that state, for an article with 950 parts per thousand

platinum group metals but less than 950 parts pure platinum, that other

platinum group metals in the article be disclosed in the mark.\10\ If

the platinum is 750 parts or more, the next predominate metal should be

named (e.g., Irid-Plat, for an item containing 90% platinum and 10%

iridium). If the platinum is less than 750 parts (but at least 500

parts pure platinum), all the other platinum group metals should be

named, preceded by a number indicating the amount in parts per thousand

of that metal (e.g., 600 platinum-350 iridium).\11\

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

\10\ Jabel (47) noted at p.1, that ``there's an awful lot of

real (10% iridium platinum) platinum out there that should be

acknowledged.'' This provision addresses the marketing of this

product.

\11\ VPS sections 3.5(2) and (3).

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

The Commission is seeking comment on whether it should adopt these

sections as safe harbor provisions (i.e., as examples of markings and

descriptions that are not considered unfair or deceptive). The

Commission asks that commenters address whether the marking of an item

containing between 750 and 950 parts platinum (e.g., Irid-Plat), will

be understood by consumers or whether it will be confusing. The

Commission is especially interested in how consumers will interpret a

marking where the next predominate metal precedes the word platinum.

The Commission also solicits comment on the need for separate

guidance for items containing between 750 and 950 parts pure platinum

and items containing between 500 and 750 parts pure platinum. The

Commission is considering one safe harbor provision for all items

containing less than 950 parts pure platinum, that would recommend

naming all platinum group metals in the item, preceded by a number

indicating the amount in parts per thousand of that metal. This change

may simplify Commission guidance and provide greater information to

consumers about the amount of platinum and other platinum group metals

in the item. The Commission requests comment on this approach.

The JVC also proposed including a section that states that no

article containing fewer than 500 parts per thousand of pure platinum

shall be marked ``platinum.'' This proposal differs from the VPS

section, which states that such an article can be marked ``iridium,''

``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' or ``osmium'' (whichever

predominates in the article) if the article consists of 950 parts per

thousand of platinum group metals.\12\ There was no comment on this

section. The Commission believes that referring to an article that

contains less than 500 parts pure platinum as ``platinum,'' without

qualification, may be deceptive. The Commission does not believe that

it would be deceptive to mark the item with the name of the predominate

metal in the item. The Commission recognizes, however, that the

predominate metal in such an item may be platinum (e.g., 480 platinum,

250 palladium, 220 iridium). Although the Commission proposes including

the provision, in the form it appears in the VPS, as a safe harbor

provision in the Guides, it solicits comment on whether the Guides

should address separately the situation where an item contains less

than 500 parts pure platinum, but platinum is still the predominate

metal.

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

\12\ VPS section 3.5(4).

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

2. Other Proposals

The Commission received a request for an advisory opinion from the

JVC and Platinum Guild International on November 30, 1995. The JVC and

Platinum Guild International requested that the Commission advise that

the following markings or descriptions would not be considered

deceptive: PT850 or 850 Plat; PT900 or 900 Plat; PT950 or 950 Plat; and

PT999 or 999 Plat. The minimum content for platinum would be 850 parts

per thousand. The JVC and Platinum Guild International state that these

markings are similar to markings for gold jewelry and would be more

understandable than the markings suggested in the VPS. They also state

that these markings are used in Japan and Switzerland.

The request differs from the scheme of marking that is contained in

the Voluntary Product Standard, described above. For items with less

than 950 parts pure platinum, the other component platinum group metals

would not be disclosed. Under this scheme of markings, it is unclear

how products containing less than 850 parts platinum would be

described. The Commission solicits comment on these issues and the

costs and benefits of these markings relative to those in the VPS.

3. Abbreviations and Trademarks

The JVC proposed including a section from the VPS describing the

``recognized abbreviations'' for each of the platinum group metals

(platinum, iridium, palladium, ruthenium, rhodium and osmium).13

Each is a four-letter abbreviation. The Platinum Guild suggested that

these abbreviations be changed to permit the use of two letter

abbreviations.14 The Guild stated that jewelry manufacturers have

said that ``the marking requirements and long metal abbreviations are a

deterrent to entering the marketplace with a product such as `585 PLAT

365 PALL.' Shorter abbreviations would be a real help to the platinum

segment of the jewelry industry, i.e., `585 PT.' ''15

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

\13\ VPS section 5.

\14\ Comment 245, pp. 2-3. ``Plat.,'' ``irid.,'' ``pall.,''

``ruth.,'' ``rhod.,'' and ``osmi.'' could be replaced by ``PT,''

``IR,'' ``PA,'' ``RU,'' ``RH,'' and ``OS.''

\15\ Comment 245, p.3.

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

The two letter abbreviations are the same as those listed in the

periodic chart of the elements, but the four-letter abbreviations are

more likely to be understood by consumers with no knowledge of

chemistry. However, in response to the comments, the Commission

proposes including a provision that states that the four-letter

abbreviations are preferred, but that the use of two-letter

abbreviations on articles that consist of more than two platinum group

metals would not be objectionable. Comments on this proposal and on

whether two-letter abbreviations should be acceptable in all situations

are desired.

The JVC also recommended including in the Guides the VPS section

that requires that, if a platinum quality mark appears on an article,

the trademark of the manufacturer must also appear. The eleven

pertinent comments discussing this proposal all favored requiring a

trademark on quality-marked platinum.16 However, most gave no

reason. Platinum is not covered by the National Stamping Act, which

requires that an article that is stamped with a quality mark indicating

that it is made of gold or silver, also bear a trademark of the

manufacturer or importer. Preston stated that the Commission would be

``the next logical Federal authority * * * to close the trade mark

stamping gap for platinum products'' and that this requirement would

``help maintain uniformly high product standards by causing

manufacturers, importers, or sellers who stamp ``platinum'' on their

products to identify themselves.'' 17

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

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

(62); McGee (112); Bridge (163); IJA (192); Canada (209); Matthey

(213); and MJSA (226).

\17\ Comment 229, p.10.

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

The purpose of the Guides, however, is not to ``maintain uniformly

high product standards'' but rather to prevent unfairness and

deception. It is neither deceptive nor unfair to mark an item as

[[Page 27226]]

platinum but not to identify the trademark of the manufacturer.18

Hence, the Commission has not included in the Guides a requirement that

the trademark must accompany any platinum quality mark.

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

\18\ If there are problems with the product, the consumer can

seek assistance from the seller of the item (probably a retailer who

in turn may know, or seek assistance from, the manufacturer of the

item).

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

Finally, the JVC proposed including the list of ``exemptions''

(e.g., joint, catches, etc.) to which the quality mark is deemed not to

apply. The Commission proposes adding a note to the section stating

that a list of exemptions can be found in the appendix.

C. Suggested Provisions for Platinum-Filled Products

The JVC proposed including a subsection on ``platinum-filled'' or

``platinum overlay'' (i.e., platinum-plated) products. The FRN asked

whether a standard should be established for platinum-filled, platinum

overlay, or platinum-clad products and whether a standard that the

plating constitute at least 1/20th of the weight of the entire article

would be appropriate.

In response to this question, Preston stated that platinum-filled

and platinum overlay are not yet produced commercially by the platinum

industry. Preston also stated that since these products may be

introduced in the future, the JVC's Platinum subcommittee, ``[i]n the

absence of carefully explored standards * * * arbitrarily copied the

technology and standards for similar products in the gold industry.''

19

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

\19\ Comment 229, p.9; Jabel (47) p.1 (stating, ``How were

these standards established? For wear? For weight? For

appearance?''); Canada (209) p.4 (stating that the proposed standard

``deserves further study,'' and noting that ``there is industry

interest for other platinum products with approximately 585 parts

platinum per 1000 parts metal'').

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

Some comments stated that a standard should be established.20

One noted that ``if [platinum plating] is currently being done, it

should have the same regulations as gold coated products.'' 21

However, another stated the same terms should not be used for gold and

platinum.22 Alexander Korbelak stated that the term ``platinum-

filled'' was deceptive.23 Others simply answered the question in

the FRN ``yes'' 24 or ``no.'' 25

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

\20\ Phillips (204) p.1 (stating that ``some standard for

platinum filled needs to be established''); Bruce (218) p.9 (stating

that ``platinum-filled'' products may have overseas potential and

that it would be best ``to have standards set, so that when the

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

\21\ Bales (156) p.9.

\22\ G&B (30) p.8.

\23\ Comment 27, p.5.

\24\ Estate (23); Schwartz (52); Handy (62); and MJSA (226).

\25\ Leach (257).

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

Sheaffer commented that ``a standard should be established for

platinum plating (regardless of how applied),'' but favored a standard

specifying minimum fineness and thickness. Sheaffer stated that a

standard based on a weight ratio ``will encourage the production of

inferior articles lacking strength and rigidity as the thickness and,

thus, the cost of the plate can readily be reduced by use of a very

thin base material.'' 26

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

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

``coating thickness'' standard would be more appropriate than a

weight standard).

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

The Platinum Guild and Johnson Matthey both favored the proposed

standard, noting that it ``will assure that a properly manufactured

product will be durable and have a reasonable precious metal content.''

27

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

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

electroplating, or chemical deposition of platinum, although

currently not a factor in the marketplace, ``may need to be

addressed in future guides'').

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

Because the comments indicate that platinum-filled products are not

currently being marketed, there are no deceptive practices occurring.

Moreover, there appears to be little consensus on what standard would

best meet consumer expectations. Thus, the Commission does not propose

including a provision for this product in the Guides at this time.

Future marketers of such products could be guided by the provisions

that apply to gold- and silver-plated products. The Commission,

however, solicits comment on whether there is a need to address

platinum-filled products in the Guides at this time, and if so, why.

D. Proposals for Solder-Filled Platinum Chain

The JVC proposed adding a provision on solder-filled platinum

chain. The FRN solicited comment on whether a standard of 850 parts per

thousand pure platinum is appropriate.

The Platinum Guild and Johnson Matthey both noted that Japan, which

consumes the greatest amount of platinum jewelry in the world, uses the

850 standard for platinum chain. They stated that the 850 standard is

appropriate, ``whether solder filled or solid wire is used in the

manufacture of the product,'' and noted that ``Internationally, little

solder filled wire is used * * * .'' Both also stated that a standard

of ``850 platinum'' for chain products ``will allow the U.S.

manufacturer to compete more fairly in the world marketplace.'' 28

MJSA stated that the proposed 850 standard for platinum chain ``is

consistent with existing industry standards and practices.'' 29

Other comments simply approved the proposed standard.30 Canada

commented that ``in Canada no specific standard is advised as the

question is under review.'' 31 Korbelak stated that such a product

should be designated ``solder-filled platinum.'' 32

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

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

\29\ Comment 226, p.6.

\30\ Estate (23); Handy (62); G&B (30); and Jabel (47).

\31\ Comment 209, p.4.

\32\ Comment 27, p.5.

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

Because the comments indicate that the proposed standard reflects

existing standards both in the U.S. and abroad, the Commission proposes

including this standard, as a safe harbor, in the Guides.

E. Proposals for Platinum in Combination with Gold Products

Finally, the JVC recommended including a section, adapted from the

Voluntary Products Standard, providing that an article in which

platinum is combined with gold so that they are ``visually separable

and easily distinguishable one from the other,'' may have the term

``platinum'' applied followed by a karat mark. However, the combination

of platinum and gold is adequately covered in the Guides by the

respective sections on platinum and gold and by the section on quality

marks.33 Thus, the Commission has concluded that it is unnecessary

to include this section in the revised Guides.

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

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

on products that are a combination of two or more metals of similar

surface appearance. This section provides that ``each quality mark

should be closely accompanied by an identification of the part or

parts to which the mark is applicable.'' The Commission has

determined that the guidance provided in this section will prevent

deception.

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

III. Request for Comment

The Commission seeks public comment on section 23.7 of the Guides

and all of the proposed changes discussed above. The Commission also

requests comment on the following specific questions:

1. Do products with less than 950 parts per thousand pure platinum

have the same qualities and characteristics as products with larger

amounts of platinum?

2. Products consisting of between 750 and 950 parts per 1000 pure

platinum may be marked ``platinum'' provided that the name of the next

predominant PGM precedes the word platinum. Products consisting of

between 500 and

[[Page 27227]]

750 parts per 1000 pure platinum may be marked ``platinum'' provided

that all PGM in the product are marked and preceded by a number

indicating the amount of the metal in parts per thousand. Should the

guidance for all products consisting of less than 950 parts pure

platinum be the same? If so, why? What are the reasons for having

different standards for the products?

3. For products consisting of less than 950 parts pure platinum,

what are the benefits and costs of marking each PGM contained in the

product? Should the amount of each metal, in parts per thousand, be

disclosed?

4. Should products with less than 950 parts pure platinum be marked

with only the amount of pure platinum contained in the product (e.g.,

PLAT 900)? Do consumers understand this marking? Would percentage

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

5. Are there any international standards for marking platinum

products? Should the Guides follow these standards? Why or why not?

6. Should products with less than 500 parts per thousand pure

platinum be marked ``platinum''? Why or why not?

7. Should platinum and other PGM be described with two letter

abbreviations? Do consumers understand two letter abbreviations?

8. Is there a need for Commission guidance regarding descriptions

of platinum-filled, platinum overlay or platinum-clad products? If so,

how should these products be addressed?

9. Should chain articles containing solder-filled wire and

consisting of at least 850 parts per thousand pure platinum be marked

``platinum''? Why or why not?

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 23

Advertising; Jewelry; Trade practices.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to amend Title 16 of the Code

of Federal Regulations as follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 23 continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 23.7 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 23.7 Misuse of the words ``platinum,'' ``iridium,''

``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' and ``osmium.''

(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the words ``platinum,''

``iridium,'' ``palladium,'' ``ruthenium,'' ``rhodium,'' or ``osmium,''

or any abbreviation to mark or describe all or part of an industry

product if such marking or description misrepresents the product's true

composition. The Platinum Group Metals (PGM) are Platinum, Iridium,

Palladium, Ruthenium, Rhodium, and Osmium.

(b) The following are examples of markings and descriptions that

are not considered unfair or deceptive:

(1) The following four-letter abbreviations for each of the PGM may

be used for quality marks on articles consisting of one or two PGM:

``Plat.'' for Platinum; ``Irid.'' for Iridium; ``Pall.'' for Palladium;

``Ruth.'' for Ruthenium; ``Rhod.'' for Rhodium; and ``Osmi.'' for

Osmium. If an article contains more than two PGM, the following

abbreviations may be used for quality marks to disclose three or more

constituent metals: ``Pt.'' for Platinum; ``Ir.'' for Iridium; ``Pd.''

for Palladium; ``Ru.'' for Ruthenium; ``Rh.'' for Rhodium; and ``Os.''

for Osmium.

(2) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per

thousand pure Platinum may be marked ``Platinum.''

(3) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per

thousand PGM, of which at least 750 parts per thousand are pure

Platinum, may be marked ``Platinum'' provided that the name or

abbreviation of the PGM member that is the next largest constituent of

the alloy immediately precedes the word ``Platinum.''

(4) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per

thousand PGM, of which at least 500 parts per thousand (but less than

750) are pure Platinum, may be marked ``Platinum'' provided that the

mark of each PGM constituent is preceded by a number indicating the

amount in parts per thousand of each PGM, as, for example, ``600 Plat.-

350 Irid.,'' ``700 Platinum-250 Iridium,'' or ``500 Pt.-250 Pd.-200

Ir.''

(5) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per

thousand PGM, of which less than 500 parts per thousand are pure

Platinum, may be marked with the name or abbreviation of the PGM member

that predominates in the product, provided that the mark is preceded by

a number indicating the amount in parts per thousand of the PGM. Such

product should not be marked with the name or abbreviation for

platinum.

(6) Chain articles containing solder-filled wire and consisting of

at least 850 parts per thousand pure Platinum may be marked

``Platinum.''

Note to Sec. 23.7: Exemptions recognized in the assay of

platinum industry products are listed in the Appendix to Part 23.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of

Federal Regulations.

Appendix--List of Commenters and Abbreviations

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

Abbreviation No. Commenter

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

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

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

Inc.

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

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

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

Affairs Canada.

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

Fasnacht............................ 4 Fasnacht's Jewelry.

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

Jewelers.

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

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

Association.

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

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

Association.

King................................ 11 King's Jewelry.

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

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

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

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

MJSA................................ 226 Manufacturing Jewelers &

Silversmiths of America,

Inc.

PGI................................. 245 Platinum Guild Int'l U.S.A.

Jewelry, Inc.

[[Page 27228]]

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

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

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

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

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

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P