If your company manufactures products containing 3TG (tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold), you’ll want to listen up.
This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the petitions of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Amnesty International for a rehearing in the conflict minerals case.
If you’re not familiar with the case, in 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which directs the Commission to issue rules requiring certain companies to disclose their use of conflict minerals if those minerals are “necessary to the functionality or production of a product” manufactured by those companies.
Companies are required to identify where the minerals used in the products came from due to concerns that the exploitation and trade of conflict minerals by armed groups is helping to finance conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) region and is contributing to an emergency humanitarian crisis.
This past August, the court reaffirmed its April 2014 decision that the requirement under the Conflict Minerals Rule to identify products as not being found DRC conflict free is compelled speech that violates the First Amendment.
If the SEC plans to appeal this week’s ruling, they have 90 days to do so.
Registrants and their direct and indirect suppliers should continue with their other conflict minerals compliance and traceability initiatives.
Although your company may not be responsible for submitting a report to the SEC, you still have to answer questions from your customers. The ECIA has put together a list of member and non-member companies that have provided information on conflict materials.
For the latest regulatory and legal updates on the conflict minerals case, visit a complete listing of resources from the Electronic Components Industry Association (ECIA).
Filed Under: Industry regulations