SD

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM SD

SPECIALIZED DISCLOSURE REPORT

HARRIS CORPORATION

(Exact name of the registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware    1-3863    34-0276860

(State or other jurisdiction of    (Commission    (IRS Employer

incorporation or organization)    File Number)    Identification No.)

1025 West NASA Boulevard, Melbourne, Florida 32919

(Address of principal executive offices)     (Zip code)

Scott T. Mikuen, (321) 727-9100

(Name and telephone number, including area code, of the

person to contact in connection with this report.)

Check the appropriate box to indicate the rule pursuant to which this form is being filed, and provide the period to which the information in this form applies:

x Rule 13p-1 under the Securities Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13p-1) for the reporting period from January 1 to December 31, 2015

Section 1 - Conflict Minerals Disclosure

Item 1.01 Conflict Minerals Disclosure and Report

Conflict Minerals Disclosure

This Form SD – Specialized Disclosure Report for Harris Corporation was filed for the reporting period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (this “2015 SD Filing”).

Harris Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a leading technology innovator, solving customers' toughest mission-critical challenges by providing solutions that connect, inform and protect. We have approximately 22,000 employees supporting customers in more than 125 countries. Our largest customers are U.S. Government customers and their prime contractors.

We structure our operations primarily around the products and services we sell and the markets we serve, and we are organized in the following four business segments:

• Communication Systems, providing integrated system solutions for U.S. and international defense and public safety networks, including tactical ground and airborne radios, battlefield management software and night vision technology;

• Space and Intelligence Systems, providing complete earth observation, weather, geospatial, space protection and intelligence solutions from advanced sensors and payloads, as well as ground processing and information analytics;

• Electronic Systems, offering an extensive portfolio of solutions in electronic warfare, avionics, wireless technology, command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (“C4I”) and undersea systems; and

• Critical Networks, providing managed services supporting air traffic management, energy and maritime communications and ground network operation and sustainment, as well as high-value information technology (“IT”) and engineering services.

Because we believed for the reporting period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the “2015 Reporting Period”) that one or more “conflict minerals” (as defined in paragraph (d) of Item 1.01 of Form SD) were necessary to the functionality or production of many of the products manufactured by us or contracted by us to be manufactured, we conducted in good faith a reasonable country of origin inquiry (“RCOI”) regarding those conflict minerals pursuant to Item 1.01 of Form SD. Below is a brief description of our RCOI and our RCOI results.

RCOI and RCOI Results

For the 2015 Reporting Period (the third reporting period under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission conflict minerals rules (“Conflict Minerals Rules”)), we expanded our RCOI coverage to encompass the operations of Exelis Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Exelis”), which we acquired on May 29, 2015, and we remain in the process of integrating Exelis operations, including supply chain, with our other operations. Due to the vast and increased number of suppliers in our

2

supply chain, we continued to use for the 2015 Reporting Period a survey approach targeting the larger‑dollar‑volume suppliers for our company. We used the survey template developed by the Electronic Industry Citizens Coalition (“EICC”) and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (“GeSI”). This survey form was designed to ascertain from a supplier the presence, if any, and source, origin and processing facility of conflict minerals in the products, materials and supplies that supplier provides to us, as well as to obtain other information regarding the supply chain for those conflict minerals, that supplier’s conflict minerals program and the reliability of the information provided by that supplier.

Our targeted group of larger‑dollar‑volume suppliers represented approximately 59% of our total direct spend with suppliers (including original equipment manufacturers supplying to us through distributors) (our “Total Direct Spend”). Expanding our RCOI coverage to encompass the acquired Exelis operations increased our Total Direct Spend for the 2015 Reporting Period by approximately 27% compared with the prior reporting period and increased the number of suppliers we surveyed for the 2015 Reporting Period by approximately 50% compared with the prior reporting period. We sent our survey form to our targeted suppliers notifying them of the Conflict Minerals Rules and our conflicts minerals policy. We requested them to complete a GeSi/EICC Conflict Minerals Reporting Template, for which we would need their accurate and timely responses. We analyzed each completed survey form for completeness and content relative to the types of information we sought and otherwise to determine if it was reasonable for us to rely on the supplier’s response and the information included therein. We followed up with non-responsive suppliers and those submitting surveys that were incomplete or contained inconsistent information.

We received completed survey forms from responsive suppliers representing approximately 59% of our Surveyed Spend (as defined below), or approximately 35% of our Total Direct Spend. In addition, we received unsolicited surveys from suppliers representing approximately an additional 5% of our Surveyed Spend, or approximately an additional 2% of our Total Direct Spend. Thus, we received solicited and unsolicited completed survey forms on which we determined it was reasonable for us to rely from suppliers representing approximately 37% of our Total Direct Spend (and we refer in this 2015 SD Filing to our Total Direct Spend represented by the suppliers from whom we solicited survey forms, together with those from whom we received unsolicited survey forms, as our “Surveyed Spend”).

3

A summary of certain information in those solicited and unsolicited completed survey forms follows:

• Suppliers responding that the products, materials and supplies those suppliers provided to us did not contain any of the four conflict minerals (tin, tantalum, tungsten, gold) represented approximately 7% of our Surveyed Spend (approximately 4% of our Total Direct Spend).

• Suppliers responding that any conflict minerals in the products, materials and supplies those suppliers provided to us did not originate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an “adjoining country” (as defined in paragraph (d) of Item 1.01 of Form SD) (collectively, the “covered countries”) represented approximately 22% of our Surveyed Spend (approximately 12% of our Total Direct Spend).

• Suppliers responding that the source of any conflict minerals in the products, materials and supplies those suppliers provided to us was uncertain or unknown represented approximately 20% of our Surveyed Spend (approximately 12% of our Total Direct Spend).

• Suppliers responding that any conflict minerals in the products, materials and supplies those suppliers provided to us were believed to have originated from the covered countries represented approximately 15% of our Surveyed Spend (approximately 9% of our Total Direct Spend).

Based on our RCOI, we determined for the 2015 Reporting Period that the necessary conflict minerals in the products, materials and supplies provided to us by the suppliers responding as described in the second and third bullets above did not originate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country or that we had no reason to believe that such necessary conflict minerals may have originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country.

Additionally, for the necessary conflict minerals in the products, materials and supplies provided to us by the suppliers responding as described in the fourth bullet above, we determined based on our RCOI for the 2015 Reporting Period that we knew such necessary conflict minerals originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country and are not from recycled or scrap sources, or that we had reason to believe that such necessary conflict minerals may have originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country and have reason to believe that such necessary conflict minerals may not be from recycled or scrap sources. Consequently, we exercised due diligence on the source and custody of such necessary conflict minerals pursuant to Item 1.01(c) of Form SD, and we have filed a Conflict Minerals Report as Exhibit 1.01 to this Form SD.

Our 2015 SD Filing and Conflict Minerals Report are publicly available on our Internet website at the following link:

Item 1.02 Exhibit

Our Conflict Minerals Report required by Item 1.01 is filed as Exhibit 1.01 to this Form SD.

Section 2 – Exhibits

Item    2.01 Exhibits

The following exhibit is filed herewith:

Exhibit 1.01 – Conflict Minerals Report as required by Items 1.01 and 1.02.

4

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the duly authorized undersigned.

HARRIS CORPORATION

By: /s/ Scott T. Mikuen

Name: Scott T. Mikuen

Title: Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

Date: May 27, 2016

5

EX-1.01

Exhibit 1.01

Harris Corporation

Conflict Minerals Report

For the Reporting Period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015

This Conflict Minerals Report for Harris Corporation for the reporting period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (this “CMR”) was filed pursuant to Item 1.01(c) of Form SD – Specialized Disclosure Report (“Form SD”). See the Form SD – Specialized Disclosure Report for Harris Corporation for the reporting period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the “2015 SD Filing”) for the disclosures required therein regarding certain of our necessary “conflict minerals” (as defined in paragraph (d) of Item 1.01 of Form SD), including information regarding our reasonable country of origin inquiry (“RCOI”) and our RCOI results.

Due Diligence

For the necessary conflict minerals in the products, materials and supplies provided to us by the suppliers who submitted completed survey forms as part of our RCOI for the reporting period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the “2015 Reporting Period”) and responded that any conflict minerals in the products, materials and supplies those suppliers provided to us were believed to have originated from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”) or an “adjoining country” (as defined in paragraph (d) of Item 1.01 of Form SD) (collectively, the “covered countries”), we exercised due diligence on the source and custody of such necessary conflict minerals pursuant to Item 1.01(c) of Form SD.

The following description of our due diligence design and measures performed shows how the design of our due diligence measures is in conformity with, in all material respects, the criteria set forth in the internationally recognized due diligence framework used by us, and secondly, how the due diligence measures performed, as described herein, are consistent with the due diligence process that we undertook.

Design of our Due Diligence Process

Our conflict minerals due diligence process was designed to conform with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, Second Edition (the “OECD Guidance”), as applicable for tin, tantalum, tungsten, gold (“3TG”) and downstream companies (as the term is defined in the OECD Guidance), including its five-step framework for risk-based due diligence in the mineral supply chain. The criteria in the OECD Guidance and its five-step framework were incorporated into the design of our conflict minerals due diligence process. Consistent with the guidelines recommended by the OECD, a cross-divisional and cross-functional team, including representatives from the areas of supply chain, legal, operations, finance, audit, contracts, environmental health and safety, and executive management, designed our conflict minerals due diligence process. The measures in our conflict minerals due diligence process were designed to:

Page 1 of 5

1. Establish management systems for conflict minerals supply chain due diligence and reporting;

2. Identify and assess conflict minerals sourcing risk in our supply chain;

3. Implement strategies to respond to conflict minerals risks identified;

4. Utilize independent third-party audits of the due diligence practices of conflict minerals smelters and refiners; and

5. Report annually on our conflict minerals supply chain due diligence activities.

Due Diligence Measures Performed

Our due diligence measures included the following activities:

Step 1: Establish management systems for conflict minerals supply chain due diligence and reporting

We previously established management systems for conflict minerals supply chain due diligence and reporting. As part of that step, we implemented a Conflict Minerals Policy and related procedures and created an internal management structure to support supply chain due diligence, including forming a conflict minerals executive steering committee comprised of corporate and business unit executives with guidance and oversight roles and a cross-functional cross-segment working team led by an overall project leader who was appointed by the steering committee to ensure a consistent process was established and followed throughout our company. For the 2015 Reporting Period, this team followed our established communication processes designed to provide information, including our Conflict Minerals Policy (which is posted on our external and internal websites), to our suppliers and to the public. We continued to establish controls designed to improve transparency in the conflict minerals supply chain, including the identification of upstream suppliers in our multi-tiered supply chain and the development of metrics in order to measure supplier progress in improving supply chain transparency and responsible sourcing. We continued to strengthen our engagement with our “non-service” suppliers and improve their capability to support our Conflict Minerals Policy by providing information regarding conflict minerals and related regulatory requirements and conveying our expectations regarding responsible sourcing of conflict minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas, providing guidance on how to use the survey template developed by the Electronic Industry Citizens Coalition (“EICC”) and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (“GeSI”) in data collection and reporting, and making available the Conflict-Free Sourcing Initiative (“CFSI”) conflict-free smelter list.

We continued to maintain a grievance mechanism through which interested parties may contact us (via our external web site or directly via Conflict_Minerals@Harris.com) to express concerns regarding the circumstances of mineral extraction, trade, handling and export in conflict-affected and high-risk areas.

Step 2: Identify and assess conflict minerals sourcing risk in our supply chain

In the second step in our due diligence process, we identified and assessed conflict minerals sourcing risk in our supply chain. As described in our 2015 SD Filing in connection with our RCOI, we surveyed for the 2015 Reporting Period our large dollar volume product-related suppliers. The survey requested that suppliers who indicated that conflict minerals were necessary to the

Page 2 of 5

functionality or production of their materials or products provided to us identify, where possible, the smelting facilities used to process the conflict minerals, the mine or location of origin of those conflict minerals, and supplier due diligence efforts performed in order to assess the risk in the supply chain.As part of that survey process, we sought to identify those smelters from “red flag” locations of mineral origin and transit that are in our supply chain. Because there are multiple tiers in the supply chain between us and the smelters, this process will continue to be ongoing. The purpose of seeking to identify these smelters was to obtain the following information: (i) the identification of all countries of origin for conflict minerals and (ii) the transport and transit of conflict minerals in the supply chain of each smelter. As described above, certain of the completed supplier surveys indicated that the origin of necessary conflict minerals in the products, materials or supplies provided to us by the applicable supplier was the DRC or an adjoining country, which resulted in us performing further due diligence measures. More specifically, we engaged in further investigation and subsequent communications with the applicable suppliers regarding the source and chain of custody of the necessary conflict minerals in the products, materials or supplies provided to us by the applicable supplier.

For example, we investigated further as to the smelters/refiners that the applicable supplier indicated it used. We confirmed the applicable smelters/refiners were participants in the CFSI and listed as an EICC Conflict-Free Smelter in the case of each applicable supplier except for one, which was able to provide us only limited information, even after our follow up attempts. The limited information provided by that one supplier indicated that although it sourced tin from the DRC or an adjoining country, (i) it did not identify which of its smelters sourced from the region, (ii) none of its smelters indicated in their declaration that they or any of their mines are located in the DRC or an adjoining country or that they were sourcing from the DRC or an adjoining country, and (iii) 50% of its identified tin suppliers are listed as EICC Conflict-Free Smelters (with an additional 28% active in the EICC audit program to become an EICC Conflict-Free Smelter).

Step 3: Implement strategies to respond to conflict minerals risks identified

In the third step in our due diligence process, we implement strategies to respond to conflict minerals risks we identify. If applicable, we would review identified risks and develop responses giving consideration to existing terms with the applicable supplier, the requirements of our customers and other business factors. Our response may include: (a) continuing to source from the applicable supplier; (b) continuing to source from the applicable supplier during a period of risk mitigation efforts; (c) temporarily suspending trade with the applicable supplier while pursuing ongoing measurable risk mitigation; or (d) disengaging with the applicable supplier.

Step 4: Utilized independent third-party audits of the due diligence practices of conflict minerals smelters and refiners

We continue to maintain our membership in the EICC. As outlined in the OECD Guidance, the internationally recognized standard on which our due diligence process is based, we support an industry initiative that audits smelters’ and refiners’ due diligence activities. That industry initiative is the EICC and GeSI CFSI. The data on which we relied for certain statements in this CMR was

Page 3 of 5

obtained through our membership in the CFSI, using the Reasonable Country of Origin Inquiry report for member “HARR”.

In addition, in April 2016, the Aerospace Industry Association (“AIA”) contacted the 48 known smelters that source 3TG in the covered countries and are not currently participating in the CFSI Conflict-Free Smelter Program and encouraged them to conduct due diligence on the origin of 3TG in their supply chains and to become validated as a conflict-free smelter or refiner. Through our membership in the AIA and participation in the AIA Conflict Minerals Working Group, we supported this outreach and will continue to support on-going efforts to reduce risk in our supply chain.

Step 5: Report annually on our conflict minerals supply chain due diligence activities

In the fifth step in our due diligence process, we report annually on our conflict minerals supply chain due diligence activities, which we do through our website as described above and through our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on Form SD and any associated CMR.

Due Diligence Results

Based on the results of our due diligence procedures described above, it is clear from our RCOI and due diligence for the 2015 Reporting Period that a large portion of our supply chain does not know the source of necessary conflict minerals in the products, materials or supplies provided to us by the applicable supplier or was not able to identify the smelter of the conflict minerals in the specific products, materials or supplies provided to us by the applicable supplier. Through our RCOI for the 2015 Reporting Period, we received completed surveys for approximately 35 percent of our Total Direct Spend; however approximately 90 percent of the surveys we received were completed by the applicable suppliers on the basis of their company-wide operations, rather than on the basis of specific materials or products supplied to us. Additionally, completed supplier surveys representing approximately 12 percent of our Total Direct Spend indicated that the origin of necessary conflict minerals in the products, materials or supplies provided to us by the applicable supplier was uncertain or unknown. For the completed surveys representing approximately 9 percent of our Total Direct Spend from suppliers that indicated they sourced conflict minerals from the covered countries, we generally confirmed that those conflict minerals did not directly or indirectly fund armed groups because they originated from an EICC Conflict-Free Smelter.

Based on the limitations noted above regarding the information provided to us in the completed supplier surveys, we do not know either the facilities used to process, or the country or specific mine or location of origin of, the necessary conflict minerals in our products for the 2015 Reporting Period.

Some of the surveys we received that were completed by the applicable suppliers identified known smelters in our suppliers’ supply chain. Based on the limitations described above we cannot conclude these smelters were in our supply chain for the 2015 Reporting Period.

Page 4 of 5

As described above, where completed supplier surveys indicated a supplier’s conflict minerals originated in the covered countries or identified mines in the covered countries for the 2015 Reporting Period (specifically, in the DRC, Burundi and Rwanda), we generally confirmed that smelters that indicated that they sourced from this region were EICC Conflict-Free Smelters and that the identified mines were supplying smelters confirmed as EICC Conflict-Free Smelters.

We have taken or will take steps after December 31, 2015 to continue to mitigate the risk that our necessary conflict minerals directly or indirectly finance or benefit armed groups in covered countries. We intend to continue our progress in reaching back through the tiers of suppliers in our supply chain as part of our continued effort to identify the smelters upstream from the suppliers in our supply chain. As noted in our Form SD, we remain in the process of integrating the operations, including supply chain, of Exelis Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Exelis”), which we acquired on May 29, 2015, with our other operations. Based on the knowledge gained in our survey process of our supply chain as part of our RCOI for the 2015 Reporting Period, which was expanded to include Exelis operations, resulting in surveying approximately 50% more suppliers compared with the prior reporting period, we continue to gain clarity of which suppliers’ products, materials or supplies supplied to us may contain conflict minerals. We intend to continue our focus on working closely with more suppliers, particularly those with whom we conduct the largest volume of business and over whom we may have the greatest influence. Our internal supply chain organizations and internal commodity teams generally intend to continue to establish long-term relationships with suppliers, which we intend to leverage as part of this process. We believe identification of the upstream smelters will allow us to encourage specific smelters to be compliant with the CFSI and to seek information from those smelters to assist us in identifying and mitigating the risk that conflict minerals in our supply chain directly or indirectly finance or benefit armed groups in the covered countries. We intend to continue to communicate to our suppliers regarding our expectations regarding responsible supply chains for conflict minerals coming from conflict-affected and high-risk areas, our potential actions (i.e., consequences to suppliers) in response to identified conflict minerals risks in our supply chain, and metrics we are developing to measure supplier progress in improving supply chain transparency and responsible sourcing. We also intend to continue our membership in industry associations such as the AIA and the EICC, through which we support the CFSI efforts to improve the assessment of supplier and smelter due diligence in the supply chain of conflict minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas.

Page 5 of 5