An issuer is not required to obtain an IPSA of its conflict minerals report during the transition period if any of its products are DRC conflict undeterminable. An issuer that determines, after exercising due diligence, that at least one of its products may be described as DRC conflict undeterminable is not required to obtain an independent private sector audit (IPSA) of its conflict minerals report during the temporary DRC conflict undeterminable transition period. "DRC conflict undeterminable" is a temporary designation that any company may take advantage of in its conflict minerals report for calendar years 2013 and 2014, and smaller reporting companies can take advantage of in their conflict minerals reports for calendar years 2013-2016. Because the existence of even one DRC conflict undeterminable product is enough to eliminate the need for an IPSA of a conflict minerals report during the transition period, it is likely that very few issuers will need to obtain IPSAs of their reports before calendar year 2015 (Question 14).

An issuer that does not obtain an IPSA of its conflict minerals report because some of its products are DRC conflict undeterminable cannot describe any of its products as DRC conflict free in the report. If an issuer does not obtain an IPSA of its conflict minerals report because at least one of its products is DRC conflict undeterminable, it may not describe any qualifying products as DRC conflict free in the report. The FAQ refers to the rule's adopting release, which allows an issuer to describe products as DRC conflict free in its conflict minerals report if, after conducting due diligence, the issuer can determine that the conflict minerals in those products did not finance or benefit armed groups in that region. Because the rule's definition of due diligence includes obtaining an IPSA of the conflict minerals report, the FAQ concludes that an issuer must obtain an IPSA in order to describe any of its products as DRC conflict free (Question 15).

Even though the same framework may be used for the issuer's RCOI and detailed supply chain due diligence, an IPSA need not cover the RCOI. The nationally or internationally recognized due diligence framework used by an issuer to comply with the rule may include procedures for obtaining information about a conflict mineral's country of origin. However, the IPSA does not need to cover steps a company takes as part of its reasonable country of origin inquiry (RCOI) because, under the conflict minerals rule, the RCOI is a distinct step separate from the due diligence process. Therefore, the auditor only needs to opine on whether the design of the issuer's due diligence framework is in accordance with the portion of the nationally or internationally recognized due diligence framework beginning after the RCOI. Regarding the second audit objective, the guidance reiterates that an auditor only needs to opine on whether the issuer actually performed the due diligence measures described in its report after the issuer determined it had reason to believe its conflict minerals may have originated in the DRC or an adjoining country (Question 18).

Guidance on how to deal with situations when products contain conflict minerals with different statuses under the conflict minerals rule (Questions 16 and 19).

Other information on the content of the IPSA (Question 20).