2021 Draft List of Critical Minerals, 62199-62203 [2021-24488]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 9, 2021 / Notices
[FR Doc. 2021–24408 Filed 11–8–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
[OMB Control Number 1615–0015]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Extension, Without Change,
of a Currently Approved Collection:
Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers
U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: 30-Day notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and clearance in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. The purpose of this notice is to
allow an additional 30 days for public
comments.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted until December 9,
2021.
SUMMARY:
Written comments and/or
suggestions regarding the item(s)
contained in this notice, especially
regarding the estimated public burden
and associated response time, must be
submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal website at https://
www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID
number USCIS–2007–0018. All
submissions received must include the
OMB Control Number 1615–0015 in the
body of the letter, the agency name and
Docket ID USCIS–2007–0018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy,
Regulatory Coordination Division,
Samantha Deshommes, Chief,
Telephone number (240) 721–3000
(This is not a toll-free number;
comments are not accepted via
telephone message.). Please note contact
information provided here is solely for
questions regarding this notice. It is not
for individual case status inquiries.
Applicants seeking information about
the status of their individual cases can
check Case Status Online, available at
the USCIS website at https://
www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS
Contact Center at (800) 375–5283; TTY
(800) 767–1833.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Nov 08, 2021
Jkt 256001
Comments
The information collection notice was
previously published in the Federal
Register on July 30, 2021, at 86 FR
41078, allowing for a 60-day public
comment period. USCIS did not receive
any comments in connection with the
60-day notice.
You may access the information
collection instrument with instructions,
or additional information by visiting the
Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
https://www.regulations.gov and enter
USCIS–2007–0018 in the search box.
The comments submitted to USCIS via
this method are visible to the Office of
Management and Budget and comply
with the requirements of 5 CFR
1320.12(c). All submissions will be
posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov, and will include
any personal information you provide.
Therefore, submitting this information
makes it public. You may wish to
consider limiting the amount of
personal information that you provide
in any voluntary submission you make
to DHS. DHS may withhold information
provided in comments from public
viewing that it determines may impact
the privacy of an individual or is
offensive. For additional information,
please read the Privacy Act notice that
is available via the link in the footer of
https://www.regulations.gov.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
should address one or more of the
following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used,
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection
Request: Extension, Without Change, of
a Currently Approved Collection.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62199
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the DHS
sponsoring the collection: I–140; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit; Not-for-profit institutions. The
information collected on this form will
be used by USCIS to determine
eligibility for the requested immigration
benefits under section 203(b)(1),
203(b)(2), or 203(b)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: The estimated total number of
respondents for the information
collection I–140 is 148,000 and the
estimated hour burden per response is
1.08 hour.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total estimated annual
hour burden associated with this
collection is 159,840 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public
burden (in cost) associated with the
collection: The estimated total annual
cost burden associated with this
collection of information is $20,596,559.
Dated: November 4, 2021.
Samantha L. Deshommes,
Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division,
Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2021–24482 Filed 11–8–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–97–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Geological Survey
[GX22GS00EMMA900]
2021 Draft List of Critical Minerals
U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public
comment.
AGENCY:
The United States remains
heavily dependent on imports of certain
mineral commodities that are vital to
the Nation’s economic and national
security interests. This dependency has
the potential to create strategic
vulnerabilities arising from adverse
foreign actions, pandemics, natural
disasters, or other events that can
disrupt the supply of critical minerals.
The Department of the Interior (DOI)
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
62200
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 9, 2021 / Notices
published a list of 35 critical minerals 1
or mineral groups on May 18, 2018, in
response to Executive Order 13817—A
Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and
Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals.
DATES: To ensure consideration, written
comments must be submitted before
December 9, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written
comments online at https://
www.regulations.gov by entering ‘‘DOI–
2021–xxxx’’ in the Search bar and
clicking ‘‘Search,’’ or by mail to Draft
List of Critical Minerals, MS–102, U.S.
Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley
Dr., Reston, VA 20192.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Mosley, (703) 648–6312,
jmosley@usgs.gov. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to
contact Mr. Mosley during normal
business hours. The FRS is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a
message or question with this
individual. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours. Normal
business hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except for
Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to Section 7002 (‘‘Mineral Security’’) of
Title VII (‘‘Critical Minerals’’) of the
Energy Act of 2020 (The Energy Act)
(Pub. L. 116–260, December 27, 2020,
116th Cong.),2 the Secretary of the
Interior (The Secretary), acting through
the Director of the U.S. Geological
Survey, and in consultation with the
Secretaries of Defense, Commerce,
Agriculture, and Energy and the United
States Trade Representative, is to
‘‘publish in the Federal Register for
public comment—(A) a description of
the draft methodology used to identify
a draft list of critical minerals; (B) a
draft list of minerals, elements,
substances, and materials that qualify as
critical minerals; and (C) a draft list of
critical minerals recovered as
byproducts and their host minerals.’’
Under the Energy Act, Sec. 7002
(c)(5)(A) the methodology and list shall
be reviewed at least every 3 years.
On behalf of the Secretary, the
Associate Director for Natural Hazards
exercising the authority of the Director
of the U.S. Geological Survey presents
here a draft list of 50 mineral
commodities proposed for inclusion on
1 Final Critical Minerals List 2018 https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/18/
2018-10667/final-list-of-critical-minerals-2018.
2 Energy Act of 2020 (Division Z of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021): https://
rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/
files/BILLS-116HR133SA-RCP-116-68.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Nov 08, 2021
Jkt 256001
the 2021 list of critical minerals:
Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barite,
beryllium, bismuth, cerium, cesium,
chromium, cobalt, dysprosium, erbium,
europium, fluorspar, gadolinium,
gallium, germanium, graphite, hafnium,
holmium, indium, iridium, lanthanum,
lithium, lutetium, magnesium,
manganese, neodymium, nickel,
niobium, palladium, platinum,
praseodymium, rhodium, rubidium,
ruthenium, samarium, scandium,
tantalum, tellurium, terbium, thulium,
tin, titanium, tungsten, vanadium,
ytterbium, yttrium, zinc, and zirconium.
Much of the increase in the number
of mineral commodities, from 35
commodities and groups on the final
2018 list to 50 commodities on the 2021
draft list, is the result of splitting the
rare earth elements and platinum group
elements into individual entries rather
than including them as mineral groups.
In addition, the 2021 draft list adds
nickel and zinc and removes helium,
potash, rhenium, and strontium. The
Energy Act of 2020 explicitly excluded
fuel minerals from the definition of a
critical mineral and the Mining and
Mineral Policy Act of 1970 3 formally
defined uranium as a mineral fuel, so
uranium was not evaluated for inclusion
on the 2021 draft list of critical
minerals.
Minerals were included on the 2021
draft list of critical minerals based on
three evaluations: (1) A quantitative
evaluation wherever sufficient data
were available, (2) a semi-quantitative
evaluation of whether the supply chain
had a single point of failure, and (3) a
qualitative evaluation when other
evaluations were not possible. The
report 4 describing the methodology and
the technical input from the U.S.
Geological Survey may be found at the
following link: https://doi.org/10.3133/
ofr20211045 and further details are
summarized in the supplementary
information section below. The U.S.
Geological Survey seeks comments on
the make-up of the draft list and the
rationale associated with potential
additions or subtractions to the draft list
as described in the methodology report.
The Energy Act of 2020, Section
7002(c)(4)(A), defined critical minerals
as those which:
(i) ‘‘are essential to the economic or
national security of the United States;
3 Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 https://
openei.org/wiki/Mining_and_Minerals_Policy_Act_
of_1970.
4 Nassar, N.T., and Fortier, S.M., 2021,
Methodology and technical input for the 2021
review and revision of the U.S. Critical Minerals
List: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
2021–1045, 31 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/
ofr20211045.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(ii) the supply chain of which is
vulnerable to disruption (including
restrictions associated with foreign
political risk, abrupt demand growth,
military conflict, violent unrest, anticompetitive or protectionist behaviors,
and other risks through-out the supply
chain); and
(iii) serve an essential function in the
manufacturing of a product (including
energy technology-, defense-, currency-,
agriculture-, consumer electronics-, and
healthcare-related applications), the
absence of which would have
significant consequences for the
economic or national security of the
United States.’’
Section 7002(a)(3)(B) further defined
the term by stating that ‘‘The term
‘‘critical mineral’’ does not include—
(i) fuel minerals;
(ii) water, ice, or snow;
(iii) common varieties of sand, gravel,
stone, pumice, cinders, and clay.’’
The Mining and Minerals Policy Act
of 1970, 30 U.S.C. 21(a), defined
‘‘mineral fuels’’ as ‘‘including oil, gas,
coal, oil shale and uranium’’. Based on
these definitions, uranium was not
evaluated for inclusion on the 2021
draft list of critical minerals.
The U.S. Government and other
organizations may also use other
definitions and rely on other criteria to
identify a material or mineral as
‘‘critical’’ or otherwise important. This
list is not intended to replace related
terms and definitions of materials that
are deemed strategic, critical or
otherwise important (such as definitions
related to the National Defense
Stockpile, Specialty Materials, and
Militarily Critical Materials). In
addition, there are many minerals not
listed on the critical minerals list that
are important to the U.S. economy.
These materials are not considered
critical as defined by the Energy Act
because the U.S. largely meets its needs
for these through domestic mining and
processing and thus a supply disruption
is considered unlikely.
The 2021 draft list of critical minerals
is based on a methodology developed
over several years with leadership by
the U.S. Geological Survey and
interagency input coordinated by the
White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy’s National Science
and Technology Council (NSTC) Critical
Minerals Subcommittee. The 2021
update to the methodology was
published by the U.S. Geological Survey
in 2021 (https://doi.org/10.3133/
ofr20211045) and includes three
evaluations: (1) A quantitative
evaluation wherever sufficient data
were available, (2) a semi-quantitative
evaluation of whether the supply chain
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
62201
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 9, 2021 / Notices
had a single point of failure, and (3) a
qualitative evaluation when other
evaluations were not possible. The
quantitative evaluation is an
enhancement of the NSTC methodology
published in 2018 (https://doi.org/
10.3133/ofr20181021) and used to
develop the 2018 list of critical
minerals. The 2021 quantitative
evaluation uses (A) a net import reliance
indicator of the dependence of the U.S.
manufacturing sector on foreign
supplies, (B) an enhanced production
concentration indicator which focuses
on production concentration outside of
the United States, (C) weights for each
producing country’s production
contribution by its ability or willingness
to continue to supply the United States,
and converts the 2018 methodology’s
qualitative evaluation of economic
importance into a quantitative
evaluation of economic vulnerability for
the U.S. manufacturing sector. Further
details on the underlying rationale and
the specific approach, data sources, and
assumptions used to calculate each
component of the supply risk metrics
are described in the references cited in
this notice.
Table 1 shows the result of the review
of the list of critical minerals for 2021,
ranked in order of decreasing supply
chain risk when a quantitative
evaluation was possible. The table
columns indicate whether each mineral
commodity recommended for inclusion
on the 2021 draft list of critical
minerals, the basis for the
recommendation (quantitative
evaluation, single point of failure, or
qualitative evaluation), whether the
commodity was included in on the 2018
final list of critical minerals, and
whether it is produced primarily as a
byproduct of another mineral
commodity. Of the sixty-six mineral
commodities listed in Table 1, fifty-four
(82% of the minerals considered) could
be evaluated using the quantitative
NSTC methodology. This includes
mineral commodities that are
recommended for inclusion on the list
based on a single point of supply chain
failure, as applicable, even if the
commodity did not meet the
quantitative threshold cutoff. See
methodology references for further
details.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF MINERAL COMMODITIES FOR THE 2021 LIST OF CRITICAL MINERALS
Highest to lowest
supply chain risk,
based on
quantitative
evaluation 5
Mineral commodity
Included on
draft 2021 list of
critical minerals?
Basis for recommended
inclusion
On 2018 list
of critical
minerals?
1 .................................
2 .................................
3 .................................
4 .................................
5 .................................
6 .................................
7 .................................
8 .................................
9 .................................
10 ...............................
11 ...............................
12 ...............................
13 ...............................
14 ...............................
15 ...............................
16 ...............................
17 ...............................
18 ...............................
19 ...............................
20 ...............................
21 ...............................
22 ...............................
23 ...............................
24 ...............................
25 ...............................
26 ...............................
27 ...............................
28 ...............................
29 ...............................
30 ...............................
31 ...............................
32 ...............................
33 ...............................
34 ...............................
35 ...............................
36 ...............................
37 ...............................
38 ...............................
39 ...............................
40 ...............................
41 ...............................
42 ...............................
43 ...............................
44 ...............................
45 ...............................
46 ...............................
Gallium ...........................
Niobium ..........................
Cobalt .............................
Neodymium ....................
Ruthenium ......................
Rhodium .........................
Dysprosium .....................
Aluminum ........................
Fluorspar ........................
Platinum ..........................
Iridium .............................
Praseodymium ................
Cerium ............................
Lanthanum ......................
Bismuth ...........................
Yttrium ............................
Antimony .........................
Tantalum .........................
Hafnium ..........................
Tungsten .........................
Vanadium .......................
Tin ...................................
Magnesium .....................
Germanium .....................
Palladium ........................
Titanium ..........................
Zinc .................................
Graphite ..........................
Chromium .......................
Arsenic ............................
Barite ..............................
Indium .............................
Samarium .......................
Manganese .....................
Lithium ............................
Tellurium .........................
Lead ................................
Potash ............................
Strontium ........................
Rhenium .........................
Nickel ..............................
Copper ............................
Beryllium .........................
Feldspar ..........................
Phosphate ......................
Silver ...............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
No ...............................
No ...............................
No ...............................
No ...............................
Yes .............................
No ...............................
Yes .............................
No ...............................
No ...............................
No ...............................
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Quantitative evaluation ...
Not applicable .................
Not applicable .................
Not applicable .................
Not applicable .................
Single point of failure .....
Not applicable .................
Single point of failure .....
Not applicable .................
Not applicable .................
Not applicable .................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
No .....................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
No .....................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
No .....................
No .....................
Yes ...................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Nov 08, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
Predominantly
recovered as
byproduct? 6
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
62202
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 9, 2021 / Notices
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF MINERAL COMMODITIES FOR THE 2021 LIST OF CRITICAL MINERALS—Continued
Highest to lowest
supply chain risk,
based on
quantitative
evaluation 5
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
(7)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(8)
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
Mineral commodity
Included on
draft 2021 list of
critical minerals?
Basis for recommended
inclusion
On 2018 list
of critical
minerals?
Mica ................................
Selenium .........................
Cadmium ........................
Zirconium ........................
Molybdenum ...................
Gold ................................
Helium ............................
Iron ore ...........................
Cesium ...........................
Erbium ............................
Europium ........................
Gadolinium .....................
Holmium .........................
Lutetium ..........................
Rubidium ........................
Scandium ........................
Terbium ..........................
Thulium ...........................
Uranium ..........................
Ytterbium ........................
No ...............................
No ...............................
No ...............................
Yes .............................
No ...............................
No ...............................
No ...............................
No ...............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Not evaluated .............
Yes .............................
Not applicable .................
Not applicable .................
Not applicable .................
Single point of failure .....
Not applicable .................
Not applicable .................
Not applicable .................
Not applicable .................
Qualitative evaluation .....
Qualitative evaluation .....
Qualitative evaluation .....
Qualitative evaluation .....
Qualitative evaluation .....
Qualitative evaluation .....
Qualitative evaluation .....
Qualitative evaluation .....
Qualitative evaluation .....
Qualitative evaluation .....
Not applicable .................
Qualitative evaluation .....
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
Yes ...................
No .....................
No .....................
Yes ...................
No .....................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Table 1 includes 11 mineral
commodities that are not recommended
for inclusion on the 2021 list of critical
minerals. These mineral commodities
did not meet the NSTC quantitative
evaluation criteria, were determined not
to have a single point of failure and
were not included on the 2018 list of
critical minerals. These eleven
commodities (17% of the minerals
evaluated) are: Lead, copper, feldspar,
phosphate, silver, mica, selenium,
cadmium, molybdenum, gold, and iron
ore, ranked in order of their overall
supply chain risk. While several of these
are essential mineral commodities, their
supply chain vulnerability is mitigated
by domestic production, lack of import
5 Ranked in order from highest to lowest risk
based on a recency-weighted mean of the
commodities’ overall supply risk scores. See the
published methodology (https://doi.org/10.3133/
ofr20211045) for further details.
6 Most mineral commodities are recovered as
byproducts to some degree, but the share of primary
production as a byproduct for the mineral
commodities that are not identified as byproducts
in the table is typically small. Rare earth elements
(REEs) are mined both as byproducts of other
mineral commodities (for example, iron ore or
heavy-mineral sands) and as the main product.
Where REEs are mined as the main product, the
individual REEs are either byproducts or
coproducts of each other. For simplicity, all REEs
are labeled in the table as having been produced
mostly as byproducts. Byproduct status can and
does change, although notable changes over short
periods of time are rare.
7 Commodities that were not evaluated using the
quantitative evaluation are not given a rank and are
ordered alphabetically.
8 USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2021
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/
mcs2021.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Nov 08, 2021
Jkt 256001
dependence, and diverse, secure sources
of supply.
Mineral commodities that did not
meet the criteria for the NSTC
quantitative evaluation, but that have an
identified single point of supply chain
failure and an essential economic
function, are recommended for
inclusion on the 2021 list of critical
minerals regardless of whether the
commodities in question were on the
2018 list. Examples are beryllium and
zirconium, which were on the 2018 list,
and nickel, which was not. Increasing
demand for nickel as a component for
producing cathodes for lithium-ion
batteries, and the limited mining,
smelting, and refinery capacity in the
United States make a compelling case
for inclusion.
Zinc, which was not on the 2018 list
of critical minerals, was above the
quantitative threshold for inclusion on
the 2021 draft list of critical minerals
due to the increasing concentration of
mine and smelter capacities globally
and the continued refinement and
development of the quantitative
evaluation criteria.
Potash, rhenium, and strontium were
on the 2018 list of critical minerals but
do not meet the quantitative threshold
and do not have a single point of failure.
Potash, strontium, and rhenium have
supply risk scores just below the
quantitative threshold. This highlights
the fact that the metrics developed with
this methodology are best viewed as a
continuum of supply risk rather than an
as indication that supply risk does not
exist for commodities below the
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Predominantly
recovered as
byproduct? 6
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
quantitative cutoff. These three
commodities all had very high trade
exposure but low disruption potential.
This reflects the fact that, while the
United States was highly net import
reliant for all three commodities, the
production of these minerals was either
not highly concentrated or was
concentrated in countries considered to
be reliable trade partners. Any changes
in the supply chain dynamics of these
commodities will be closely monitored,
but none of the three is recommended
for inclusion on the 2021 draft list of
critical minerals.
Helium (like potash, rhenium, and
strontium) was on the 2018 list of
critical minerals but does not meet the
quantitative threshold nor have a single
point of failure. The United States is the
world’s leading producer and a net
exporter of helium. Helium’s trade
exposure score was thus 0 and, in turn,
its supply risk score was 0. Crude
helium was produced in more than a
dozen plants across several U.S. States,
and several other plants produced
grade-A Helium. Therefore, helium does
not qualify for inclusion on the list
based on the single point of failure
criterion. Helium production outside
the United States was concentrated in
Qatar and Algeria. Both countries, as
well as Canada, Russia, and Tanzania,
are poised to increase their production
as additional capacity becomes available
in the near term. The Helium
Stewardship Act of 2013-directed
closure of the Federally managed
helium reserve by the Bureau of Land
Management has the potential to
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 9, 2021 / Notices
increase uncertainty in the market. The
global shift from conventional natural
gas toward shale gas, which lacks
recoverable quantities of helium, also
has the potential to reduce the supply
of helium, especially for the United
States. While these factors make helium
a commodity that bears watching, it is
not recommended for inclusion on the
2021 draft list of critical minerals.
There were insufficient data to
quantitatively evaluate several
commodities that were on the 2018 list
of critical minerals: Cesium, rubidium,
scandium, and several REEs (europium,
gadolinium, terbium, holmium, erbium,
thulium, ytterbium, and lutetium). The
United States has been completely net
import reliant for all these commodities
for many years.8 No specific global
production data were available for these
commodities; however, general
information suggests that production for
each of these commodities is highly
concentrated in a few countries.
Scandium was produced mainly as a
byproduct in China, Kazakhstan, the
Philippines, Russia, and Ukraine.
Cesium and rubidium had been
produced in Australia, Canada, China,
Namibia, and Zimbabwe; however, it is
thought that all cesium and rubidium
mine production outside of China has
either ceased in recent years or come
under control of Chinese companies.
The REEs that were not analyzed
because of the lack of data (namely
europium, gadolinium, terbium,
holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium,
and lutetium) were all heavy REEs that
were produced only or predominantly
in China. Based on this qualitative
evaluation, none of these commodities
are recommended for removal from the
list of critical minerals.
Mineral criticality is not static, but
changes over time. This analysis
represents the most recent available data
for non-fuel mineral commodities and
the current state of the methodology for
evaluation of criticality.
Please submit written comments on
this draft list by December 9, 2021 to
facilitate consideration. In particular,
the U.S. Geological Survey is interested
in comments addressing the following
topics: The make-up of the draft list and
the rationale associated with potential
additions or subtractions to the draft
list. Before including your address,
phone number, email address, or other
personally identifiable information (PII)
in your comment, you should be aware
that your entire comment, including
your PII, may be made publicly
available at any time. While you can ask
us in your comment to withhold your
PII from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Nov 08, 2021
Jkt 256001
Authority: E.O. 13817, 82 FR 60835
(December 26, 2017) and The Energy
Act of 2020, Section 7002 of Title VII
(December 27, 2020).
Dated: November 4, 2021.
James D. Applegate,
Associate Director for Natural Hazards,
Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Geological Survey.
[FR Doc. 2021–24488 Filed 11–8–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4334–63–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–WASO–CR–NAGPRA–NPS0031736;
PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000 (211);
OMB Control Number 1024–0144]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation
Regulations
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection;
request for comment.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we,
the National Park Service (NPS) are
proposing to renew an information
collection.
SUMMARY:
Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before January
10, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments on
this information collection request (ICR)
to Phadrea Ponds, NPS Information
Collection Clearance Officer by email to
phadrea_ponds@nps.gov. Please
reference OMB Control Number 1024–
0144 in the subject line of your
comments.
DATES:
To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Melanie O’Brien,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program by
email at melanie_o’brien@nps.gov, or by
telephone at (202) 354–2204.
Individuals who are hearing or speech
impaired may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1–800–877–8339 for TTY
assistance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all
information collections require approval
under the PRA. We may not conduct or
sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
As part of our continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62203
burdens, we invite the public and other
Federal agencies to comment on new,
proposed, revised, and continuing
collections of information. This helps us
assess the impact of our information
collection requirements and minimize
the public’s reporting burden. It also
helps the public understand our
information collection requirements and
provide the requested data in the
desired format.
We are especially interested in public
comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether or not the
information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
(4) How might the agency minimize
the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of response.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. We will include or
summarize each comment in our request
to OMB to approve this ICR. Before
including your address, phone number,
email address, or other personal
identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Abstract: Authorized by the Native
American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), U.S.C.
3001–3013, all public and private
museums receiving Federal funds
compile information regarding Native
American cultural items in their
possession or control. This information
must be provided to lineal descendants,
likely interested Indian tribes, Native
Hawaiian organizations, and the NPS
National NAGPRA Program. Under
NAGPRA and its implementing
regulations, we are mandated to collect
any information that is pertinent in
determining the cultural affiliation and
geographical origin of Native American
human remains and cultural items. This
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62199-62203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24488]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Geological Survey
[GX22GS00EMMA900]
2021 Draft List of Critical Minerals
AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States remains heavily dependent on imports of
certain mineral commodities that are vital to the Nation's economic and
national security interests. This dependency has the potential to
create strategic vulnerabilities arising from adverse foreign actions,
pandemics, natural disasters, or other events that can disrupt the
supply of critical minerals. The Department of the Interior (DOI)
[[Page 62200]]
published a list of 35 critical minerals \1\ or mineral groups on May
18, 2018, in response to Executive Order 13817--A Federal Strategy to
Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final Critical Minerals List 2018 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/18/2018-10667/final-list-of-critical-minerals-2018.
DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
before December 9, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments online at https://www.regulations.gov by entering ``DOI-2021-xxxx'' in the Search bar and
clicking ``Search,'' or by mail to Draft List of Critical Minerals, MS-
102, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, VA
20192.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Mosley, (703) 648-6312,
[email protected]. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339
to contact Mr. Mosley during normal business hours. The FRS is
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question
with this individual. You will receive a reply during normal business
hours. Normal business hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except for Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 7002 (``Mineral
Security'') of Title VII (``Critical Minerals'') of the Energy Act of
2020 (The Energy Act) (Pub. L. 116-260, December 27, 2020, 116th
Cong.),\2\ the Secretary of the Interior (The Secretary), acting
through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, and in consultation
with the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Agriculture, and Energy and
the United States Trade Representative, is to ``publish in the Federal
Register for public comment--(A) a description of the draft methodology
used to identify a draft list of critical minerals; (B) a draft list of
minerals, elements, substances, and materials that qualify as critical
minerals; and (C) a draft list of critical minerals recovered as
byproducts and their host minerals.'' Under the Energy Act, Sec. 7002
(c)(5)(A) the methodology and list shall be reviewed at least every 3
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Energy Act of 2020 (Division Z of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021): https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116HR133SA-RCP-116-68.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of the Secretary, the Associate Director for Natural
Hazards exercising the authority of the Director of the U.S. Geological
Survey presents here a draft list of 50 mineral commodities proposed
for inclusion on the 2021 list of critical minerals: Aluminum,
antimony, arsenic, barite, beryllium, bismuth, cerium, cesium,
chromium, cobalt, dysprosium, erbium, europium, fluorspar, gadolinium,
gallium, germanium, graphite, hafnium, holmium, indium, iridium,
lanthanum, lithium, lutetium, magnesium, manganese, neodymium, nickel,
niobium, palladium, platinum, praseodymium, rhodium, rubidium,
ruthenium, samarium, scandium, tantalum, tellurium, terbium, thulium,
tin, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, ytterbium, yttrium, zinc, and
zirconium.
Much of the increase in the number of mineral commodities, from 35
commodities and groups on the final 2018 list to 50 commodities on the
2021 draft list, is the result of splitting the rare earth elements and
platinum group elements into individual entries rather than including
them as mineral groups. In addition, the 2021 draft list adds nickel
and zinc and removes helium, potash, rhenium, and strontium. The Energy
Act of 2020 explicitly excluded fuel minerals from the definition of a
critical mineral and the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 \3\
formally defined uranium as a mineral fuel, so uranium was not
evaluated for inclusion on the 2021 draft list of critical minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 https://openei.org/wiki/Mining_and_Minerals_Policy_Act_of_1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals were included on the 2021 draft list of critical minerals
based on three evaluations: (1) A quantitative evaluation wherever
sufficient data were available, (2) a semi-quantitative evaluation of
whether the supply chain had a single point of failure, and (3) a
qualitative evaluation when other evaluations were not possible. The
report \4\ describing the methodology and the technical input from the
U.S. Geological Survey may be found at the following link: https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20211045 and further details are summarized in the
supplementary information section below. The U.S. Geological Survey
seeks comments on the make-up of the draft list and the rationale
associated with potential additions or subtractions to the draft list
as described in the methodology report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nassar, N.T., and Fortier, S.M., 2021, Methodology and
technical input for the 2021 review and revision of the U.S.
Critical Minerals List: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
2021-1045, 31 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20211045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Energy Act of 2020, Section 7002(c)(4)(A), defined critical
minerals as those which:
(i) ``are essential to the economic or national security of the
United States;
(ii) the supply chain of which is vulnerable to disruption
(including restrictions associated with foreign political risk, abrupt
demand growth, military conflict, violent unrest, anti-competitive or
protectionist behaviors, and other risks through-out the supply chain);
and
(iii) serve an essential function in the manufacturing of a product
(including energy technology-, defense-, currency-, agriculture-,
consumer electronics-, and healthcare-related applications), the
absence of which would have significant consequences for the economic
or national security of the United States.''
Section 7002(a)(3)(B) further defined the term by stating that
``The term ``critical mineral'' does not include--
(i) fuel minerals;
(ii) water, ice, or snow;
(iii) common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, cinders, and
clay.''
The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, 30 U.S.C. 21(a),
defined ``mineral fuels'' as ``including oil, gas, coal, oil shale and
uranium''. Based on these definitions, uranium was not evaluated for
inclusion on the 2021 draft list of critical minerals.
The U.S. Government and other organizations may also use other
definitions and rely on other criteria to identify a material or
mineral as ``critical'' or otherwise important. This list is not
intended to replace related terms and definitions of materials that are
deemed strategic, critical or otherwise important (such as definitions
related to the National Defense Stockpile, Specialty Materials, and
Militarily Critical Materials). In addition, there are many minerals
not listed on the critical minerals list that are important to the U.S.
economy. These materials are not considered critical as defined by the
Energy Act because the U.S. largely meets its needs for these through
domestic mining and processing and thus a supply disruption is
considered unlikely.
The 2021 draft list of critical minerals is based on a methodology
developed over several years with leadership by the U.S. Geological
Survey and interagency input coordinated by the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy's National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) Critical Minerals Subcommittee. The 2021 update to the
methodology was published by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2021
(https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20211045) and includes three evaluations:
(1) A quantitative evaluation wherever sufficient data were available,
(2) a semi-quantitative evaluation of whether the supply chain
[[Page 62201]]
had a single point of failure, and (3) a qualitative evaluation when
other evaluations were not possible. The quantitative evaluation is an
enhancement of the NSTC methodology published in 2018 (https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181021) and used to develop the 2018 list of critical
minerals. The 2021 quantitative evaluation uses (A) a net import
reliance indicator of the dependence of the U.S. manufacturing sector
on foreign supplies, (B) an enhanced production concentration indicator
which focuses on production concentration outside of the United States,
(C) weights for each producing country's production contribution by its
ability or willingness to continue to supply the United States, and
converts the 2018 methodology's qualitative evaluation of economic
importance into a quantitative evaluation of economic vulnerability for
the U.S. manufacturing sector. Further details on the underlying
rationale and the specific approach, data sources, and assumptions used
to calculate each component of the supply risk metrics are described in
the references cited in this notice.
Table 1 shows the result of the review of the list of critical
minerals for 2021, ranked in order of decreasing supply chain risk when
a quantitative evaluation was possible. The table columns indicate
whether each mineral commodity recommended for inclusion on the 2021
draft list of critical minerals, the basis for the recommendation
(quantitative evaluation, single point of failure, or qualitative
evaluation), whether the commodity was included in on the 2018 final
list of critical minerals, and whether it is produced primarily as a
byproduct of another mineral commodity. Of the sixty-six mineral
commodities listed in Table 1, fifty-four (82% of the minerals
considered) could be evaluated using the quantitative NSTC methodology.
This includes mineral commodities that are recommended for inclusion on
the list based on a single point of supply chain failure, as
applicable, even if the commodity did not meet the quantitative
threshold cutoff. See methodology references for further details.
Table 1--Summary of Evaluation of Mineral Commodities for the 2021 List of Critical Minerals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest to lowest supply Basis for
chain risk, based on Mineral commodity Included on draft 2021 list of recommended On 2018 list of Predominantly recovered as
quantitative evaluation \5\ critical minerals? inclusion critical minerals? byproduct? \6\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Gallium........... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
2............................ Niobium........... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
3............................ Cobalt............ Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
4............................ Neodymium......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
5............................ Ruthenium......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
6............................ Rhodium........... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
7............................ Dysprosium........ Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
8............................ Aluminum.......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
9............................ Fluorspar......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
10........................... Platinum.......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
11........................... Iridium........... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
12........................... Praseodymium...... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
13........................... Cerium............ Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
14........................... Lanthanum......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
15........................... Bismuth........... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
16........................... Yttrium........... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
17........................... Antimony.......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
18........................... Tantalum.......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
19........................... Hafnium........... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
20........................... Tungsten.......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
21........................... Vanadium.......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
22........................... Tin............... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
23........................... Magnesium......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
24........................... Germanium......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
25........................... Palladium......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
26........................... Titanium.......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
27........................... Zinc.............. Yes........................... Quantitative No.................... No.
evaluation.
28........................... Graphite.......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
29........................... Chromium.......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
30........................... Arsenic........... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
31........................... Barite............ Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
32........................... Indium............ Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
33........................... Samarium.......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
34........................... Manganese......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
35........................... Lithium........... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... No.
evaluation.
36........................... Tellurium......... Yes........................... Quantitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
37........................... Lead.............. No............................ Not applicable... No.................... No.
38........................... Potash............ No............................ Not applicable... Yes................... No.
39........................... Strontium......... No............................ Not applicable... Yes................... No.
40........................... Rhenium........... No............................ Not applicable... Yes................... Yes.
41........................... Nickel............ Yes........................... Single point of No.................... No.
failure.
42........................... Copper............ No............................ Not applicable... No.................... No.
43........................... Beryllium......... Yes........................... Single point of Yes................... No.
failure.
44........................... Feldspar.......... No............................ Not applicable... No.................... No.
45........................... Phosphate......... No............................ Not applicable... No.................... No.
46........................... Silver............ No............................ Not applicable... No.................... Yes.
[[Page 62202]]
47........................... Mica.............. No............................ Not applicable... No.................... No.
48........................... Selenium.......... No............................ Not applicable... No.................... Yes.
49........................... Cadmium........... No............................ Not applicable... No.................... Yes.
50........................... Zirconium......... Yes........................... Single point of Yes................... Yes.
failure.
51........................... Molybdenum........ No............................ Not applicable... No.................... No.
52........................... Gold.............. No............................ Not applicable... No.................... No.
53........................... Helium............ No............................ Not applicable... Yes................... Yes.
54........................... Iron ore.......... No............................ Not applicable... No.................... No.
(\7\)........................ Cesium............ Yes........................... Qualitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
(\8\)........................ Erbium............ Yes........................... Qualitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
(\8\)........................ Europium.......... Yes........................... Qualitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
(\8\)........................ Gadolinium........ Yes........................... Qualitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
(\8\)........................ Holmium........... Yes........................... Qualitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
(\8\)........................ Lutetium.......... Yes........................... Qualitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
(\8\)........................ Rubidium.......... Yes........................... Qualitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
(\8\)........................ Scandium.......... Yes........................... Qualitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
(\8\)........................ Terbium........... Yes........................... Qualitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
(\8\)........................ Thulium........... Yes........................... Qualitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
(\8\)........................ Uranium........... Not evaluated................. Not applicable... Yes................... No.
(\8\)........................ Ytterbium......... Yes........................... Qualitative Yes................... Yes.
evaluation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 includes 11 mineral commodities that are not recommended
for inclusion on the 2021 list of critical minerals. These mineral
commodities did not meet the NSTC quantitative evaluation criteria,
were determined not to have a single point of failure and were not
included on the 2018 list of critical minerals. These eleven
commodities (17% of the minerals evaluated) are: Lead, copper,
feldspar, phosphate, silver, mica, selenium, cadmium, molybdenum, gold,
and iron ore, ranked in order of their overall supply chain risk. While
several of these are essential mineral commodities, their supply chain
vulnerability is mitigated by domestic production, lack of import
dependence, and diverse, secure sources of supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ranked in order from highest to lowest risk based on a
recency-weighted mean of the commodities' overall supply risk
scores. See the published methodology (https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20211045) for further details.
\6\ Most mineral commodities are recovered as byproducts to some
degree, but the share of primary production as a byproduct for the
mineral commodities that are not identified as byproducts in the
table is typically small. Rare earth elements (REEs) are mined both
as byproducts of other mineral commodities (for example, iron ore or
heavy-mineral sands) and as the main product. Where REEs are mined
as the main product, the individual REEs are either byproducts or
coproducts of each other. For simplicity, all REEs are labeled in
the table as having been produced mostly as byproducts. Byproduct
status can and does change, although notable changes over short
periods of time are rare.
\7\ Commodities that were not evaluated using the quantitative
evaluation are not given a rank and are ordered alphabetically.
\8\ USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2021 https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/mcs2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral commodities that did not meet the criteria for the NSTC
quantitative evaluation, but that have an identified single point of
supply chain failure and an essential economic function, are
recommended for inclusion on the 2021 list of critical minerals
regardless of whether the commodities in question were on the 2018
list. Examples are beryllium and zirconium, which were on the 2018
list, and nickel, which was not. Increasing demand for nickel as a
component for producing cathodes for lithium-ion batteries, and the
limited mining, smelting, and refinery capacity in the United States
make a compelling case for inclusion.
Zinc, which was not on the 2018 list of critical minerals, was
above the quantitative threshold for inclusion on the 2021 draft list
of critical minerals due to the increasing concentration of mine and
smelter capacities globally and the continued refinement and
development of the quantitative evaluation criteria.
Potash, rhenium, and strontium were on the 2018 list of critical
minerals but do not meet the quantitative threshold and do not have a
single point of failure. Potash, strontium, and rhenium have supply
risk scores just below the quantitative threshold. This highlights the
fact that the metrics developed with this methodology are best viewed
as a continuum of supply risk rather than an as indication that supply
risk does not exist for commodities below the quantitative cutoff.
These three commodities all had very high trade exposure but low
disruption potential. This reflects the fact that, while the United
States was highly net import reliant for all three commodities, the
production of these minerals was either not highly concentrated or was
concentrated in countries considered to be reliable trade partners. Any
changes in the supply chain dynamics of these commodities will be
closely monitored, but none of the three is recommended for inclusion
on the 2021 draft list of critical minerals.
Helium (like potash, rhenium, and strontium) was on the 2018 list
of critical minerals but does not meet the quantitative threshold nor
have a single point of failure. The United States is the world's
leading producer and a net exporter of helium. Helium's trade exposure
score was thus 0 and, in turn, its supply risk score was 0. Crude
helium was produced in more than a dozen plants across several U.S.
States, and several other plants produced grade-A Helium. Therefore,
helium does not qualify for inclusion on the list based on the single
point of failure criterion. Helium production outside the United States
was concentrated in Qatar and Algeria. Both countries, as well as
Canada, Russia, and Tanzania, are poised to increase their production
as additional capacity becomes available in the near term. The Helium
Stewardship Act of 2013-directed closure of the Federally managed
helium reserve by the Bureau of Land Management has the potential to
[[Page 62203]]
increase uncertainty in the market. The global shift from conventional
natural gas toward shale gas, which lacks recoverable quantities of
helium, also has the potential to reduce the supply of helium,
especially for the United States. While these factors make helium a
commodity that bears watching, it is not recommended for inclusion on
the 2021 draft list of critical minerals.
There were insufficient data to quantitatively evaluate several
commodities that were on the 2018 list of critical minerals: Cesium,
rubidium, scandium, and several REEs (europium, gadolinium, terbium,
holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, and lutetium). The United States
has been completely net import reliant for all these commodities for
many years.\8\ No specific global production data were available for
these commodities; however, general information suggests that
production for each of these commodities is highly concentrated in a
few countries. Scandium was produced mainly as a byproduct in China,
Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Russia, and Ukraine. Cesium and rubidium
had been produced in Australia, Canada, China, Namibia, and Zimbabwe;
however, it is thought that all cesium and rubidium mine production
outside of China has either ceased in recent years or come under
control of Chinese companies. The REEs that were not analyzed because
of the lack of data (namely europium, gadolinium, terbium, holmium,
erbium, thulium, ytterbium, and lutetium) were all heavy REEs that were
produced only or predominantly in China. Based on this qualitative
evaluation, none of these commodities are recommended for removal from
the list of critical minerals.
Mineral criticality is not static, but changes over time. This
analysis represents the most recent available data for non-fuel mineral
commodities and the current state of the methodology for evaluation of
criticality.
Please submit written comments on this draft list by December 9,
2021 to facilitate consideration. In particular, the U.S. Geological
Survey is interested in comments addressing the following topics: The
make-up of the draft list and the rationale associated with potential
additions or subtractions to the draft list. Before including your
address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable
information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire
comment, including your PII, may be made publicly available at any
time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from
public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Authority: E.O. 13817, 82 FR 60835 (December 26, 2017) and The
Energy Act of 2020, Section 7002 of Title VII (December 27, 2020).
Dated: November 4, 2021.
James D. Applegate,
Associate Director for Natural Hazards, Exercising the Delegated
Authority of the Director, U.S. Geological Survey.
[FR Doc. 2021-24488 Filed 11-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4334-63-P
