La muestra de habla utilizada en el presente estudio

Several commentators requested that the final rule set forth the specific conflict derivatives that would trigger the rule’s disclosure and reporting obligations.64 _{Many of} these commentators recommended that the final rule limit the derivatives of columbite- tantalite, cassiterite, and wolframite to tantalum, tin, and tungsten, respectively,65 _unless the State Department determines subsequently that additional specific minerals or their derivatives are financing or benefitting armed groups.66 _{One of these commentators} pointed out that such a limit is appropriate because, although conflict minerals have other derivatives, tantalum, tin, and tungsten are the only economically significant derivatives of the conflict minerals.67 _{For example, one commentator noted that oxygen and iron are} derivatives of wolframite that could be subject to the final rule, but wolframite is not

63 _{Tungsten Statistics and Information, U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, available at}

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/tungsten.

64 _{See, e.g., letters from American AAFA, Global Tungsten & Powders Corp. (Mar. 1, 2011) (“Global}

Tungsten I”), Industry Group Coalition I, IPC I, IPC – Association Connecting Electronics Industries (Nov. 1, 2011) (“IPC II”), Materion Corporation (Nov. 1, 2011) (“Materion”), National Retail Federation (Nov. 1, 2011) (“NRF II”), PCP, Robert W. Row (Jan. 18, 2011) (“Row”), SEMI, and Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. (Nov. 9, 2011) (“SPI”).

65 _{Gold is produced in its metallic form and has no derivatives.} 66 _{See, e.g., letters from AAFA, IPC II, NRF II, PCP, and SPI.}

67 _{See letters from IPC II and NRF II. See also Transcript of SEC Roundtable, Section 0039 Lines 9-10}

36

currently a significant commercial source for oxygen or iron.68 _{Another commentator} noted that niobium is a derivative of columbite-tantalite that, absent clarification to the contrary, could be subject to the final rule as well.69 _{Some commentators, however,} asserted that that the final rule should not solely be limited to tantalum, tin, tungsten, or gold.70

One commentator recommended that the definition of “conflict mineral” not include organic metal compounds formed from a conflict mineral metal derivative, such as tin and tungsten, because these substances are no longer metals or alloys and “use of these chemical compounds is too attenuated from the original source of the mineral.”71 According to the commentator, these organometallic compounds, which include catalysts, stabilizers, and polymerization aids, are commodity chemicals used in the production of raw materials such as silicones, polyurethanes, vinyls, and polyesters. For example, the commentator noted that tin is used in a reaction with chlorine gas, after which the intermediate tin tetrachloride compound undergoes further chemical reactions with any number of organic substrates to produce an organotin compound with the final

compounds becoming substances such as stannous octoate, monobutyl tin trichloride, and dioctyltin dilaurate. These substances contain tin but have several organic groups

chemically bound to the tin nucleus and are compounds that are materially and

68 _{See letter from SEMI.} 69 _{See letter from Row.}

70 _{See, e.g., letters from BC Investment Management Corporation (Mar. 28, 2011) (“BCIMC”) and Save}

the Congo (Nov. 1, 2011) (“Save”).

37

chemically distinct from metallic tin. According to the commentator, the use of

organotin in many manufacturing sectors has not yet been recognized by manufacturers, supply chains, or regulators, which may increase costs of the final rule if organic tin compounds are included in the definition of “conflict minerals.”

In addition, a number of commentators recommended that the final rule selectively use the term “conflict mineral” because not doing so would unfairly

stigmatize the four minerals and unjustifiably hurt some companies’ reputations.72 _These commentators noted that the term “conflict mineral” in the proposed rules provides no clear distinction between the four named minerals and their derivatives that did not benefit or finance armed groups, and those that did finance or benefit armed groups. Specifically, one of these commentators noted, “refer[ring] to all cassiterite, wolframite, gold, and tantalum in the world, regardless of its origin and relationship to conflict actors” as “conflict minerals,” imposes “a reputational taint on these entire industries,” and “makes it highly challenging for companies in these industries to communicate effectively with investors and the public.”73 Commentators suggested that we limit the final rule’s definition of “conflict minerals” only to minerals that financed or benefited

72 _{See, e.g., letters from Advanced Medical Technology Association (Feb. 28, 2011) (“AdvaMed I”),}

Barrick Gold Corporation (Feb. 28, 2011) (“Barrick Gold”), Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (Mar. 2, 2011) (“Cleary Gottlieb”), Global Tungsten I, JVC et al. II, Malaysia Smelting Corporation (Jan. 26, 2011) (“MSC I”), National Association of Manufacturers (Nov. 1, 2011) (“NAM III”), Niotan Inc. (Jan. 30, 2011) (“Niotan I”), Niotan Inc. (Mar. 21, 2011) (“Niotan II”), National Mining Association (Mar. 2, 2011) (“NMA II”), SEMI, Tanzania I, TIC, and WGC II. See also MJB Consulting (Apr. 28, 2011) (“MJB I”) (arguing that the Conflict Minerals Statutory Provision is unclear as to whether the definition of “conflict minerals” refers to columbite-tantalite (coltan), cassiterite, gold, wolframite, or their derivatives, per se, originating from the Covered Countries, or columbite-tantalite (coltan), cassiterite, gold, wolframite, or their derivatives originating from the Covered Countries and that do not directly or indirectly finance or benefit armed groups in the Covered Countries).

38

armed groups and that the final rule use another name to describe minerals that did not finance or benefit armed groups, such as “potential conflict minerals,” “suspect conflict minerals,” “subject minerals,” or “covered minerals.”74 _{Additionally, for the same} reasons, some commentators indicated that the final rule should change the names of the required headings from “Conflict Minerals Disclosure” to “Country of Origin Disclosure” and change the name of the Conflict Minerals Report to “Report on Minerals Sourced from Central Africa.”75