Extension of Public Comment Period for the 2021 Draft List of Critical Minerals, 71083-71087 [2021-27001]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 14, 2021 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
(2) At least four subpopulations, as
identified under Criterion 1, meet or
exceed abundance estimates of at least
500 Parachute beardtongue individuals
over the same 10-year time period
applied to Criterion 1, as described in
greater detail in the draft recovery plan;
(3) At least four subpopulations, as
identified above under Criterion 1, have
regulatory mechanisms or other
conservation plans in place that reduce
or ameliorate threats to the Parachute
beardtongue associated with habitat loss
and fragmentation, in perpetuity, such
that Parachute beardtongue habitats in
each of the four identified
subpopulations are of sufficient quantity
and quality to support the demographic
thresholds identified under Criteria 1
and 2, as described in greater detail in
the draft recovery plan; and
(4) All four currently known viable
subpopulations of Parachute
beardtongue (Anvil Points, Logan Wash
Mine and Natural Area, Mount Callahan
Natural Area, and Mount Callahan
Saddle Natural Area) are represented in
at least one ex-situ (off-site) seed
collection that is managed according to
the Center for Plant Conservation
guidelines (Guerrant et al. 2004). If and
when new subpopulations are
discovered, the ex-situ seed collection
should be updated to represent genetic
diversity across the range of the species.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994,
peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1,
1994); our August 22, 2016, Director’s
Memo on the Peer Review Process; and
the Office of Management and Budget’s
December 16, 2004, Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
(revised June 2012), we solicited the
expert opinions of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists
regarding scientific data and
interpretations contained in our SSA
report for Parachute beardtongue
(Service 2020). Peer review of the SSA
report was completed in June 2019, and
we ensured that the opinions of peer
reviewers were objective and unbiased
by following the guidelines set forth in
the Director’s Memo, which updates and
clarifies Service policy on peer review
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016).
The purpose of such review is to ensure
that our decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analysis. Accordingly, our final
SSA report and recovery plan may differ
from the draft documents. The results of
this structured peer review process are
posted on our website at https://
www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/science/
peerReview.php. We also submitted our
SSA report to our Federal and State
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Dec 13, 2021
Jkt 256001
partners for their scientific review. The
SSA report is the scientific foundation
for this draft recovery plan.
Request for Public Comments
This notice opens the public review
and comment period for our draft
recovery plan for the Parachute
Beardtongue. Section 4(f) of the Act
requires that we provide public notice
and an opportunity for public review
and comment during the development
of recovery plans. All comments we
receive by the date specified (see DATES)
will be considered prior to approval of
the recovery plan. Written comments
and materials regarding the recovery
plan should be sent via one of the
means in the ADDRESSES section. We
will consider all information we receive
during the public comment period, and
particularly look for comments that
provide scientific rationale or factual
background. The Service and other
Federal agencies and partners will take
these comments into consideration in
the course of implementing an approved
final recovery plan. We are specifically
seeking comments and suggestions on
the following questions:
• Understanding that the time and
cost presented in the draft recovery plan
will be fine-tuned when localized
recovery implementation strategies are
developed, do you think that the
estimated time and cost to recovery are
realistic? Is the estimate reflective of the
time and cost of actions that may have
already been implemented by Federal,
State, county, or other agencies? Please
provide suggestions or methods for
determining a more accurate estimation.
• Do the draft recovery criteria
provide clear direction to partners on
what is needed to recover Parachute
beardtongue? How could they be
improved for clarity?
• Are the draft recovery criteria both
objective and measurable given the
information available for Parachute
beardtongue, now and into the future?
Please provide suggestions.
• Understanding that specific,
detailed, and area-specific recovery
actions will be developed in the RIS, do
the draft recovery actions presented in
the draft recovery plan generally cover
the types of actions necessary to meet
the recovery criteria? If not, what
general actions are missing? Are any of
the draft recovery actions unnecessary
for achieving recovery? Have we
prioritized the actions appropriately?
Public Availability of Comments
We will summarize and respond to
the issues raised by the public in an
appendix to the approved final recovery
plan. Before including your address,
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71083
phone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
You may request at the top of your
comment that we withhold this
information from public review;
however, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16
U.S.C. 1533(f).
Anna Mun˜oz,
Acting Deputy Regional Director, Lakewood,
Colorado.
[FR Doc. 2021–27014 Filed 12–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Geological Survey
[GX22GS00EMMA900]
Extension of Public Comment Period
for the 2021 Draft List of Critical
Minerals
Geological Survey, Department
of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of extension, reopening
the public comment period.
AGENCY:
The U.S Geological Survey
published a document in the Federal
Register on November 9, 2021, that
presented a description of the
methodology used to identify a draft list
of critical minerals; a draft list of
minerals, elements, substances, and
materials that qualify as critical
minerals; 1 and a draft list of critical
minerals recovered as byproducts and
their host minerals. This notice
announces a 32-day extension of the
public comment period.
DATES: The comment period for the
notice published November 9, 2021, 86
FR 62201, is reopened. Comments will
be received until January 10, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written
comments online at https://
www.regulations.gov by entering ‘‘DOI–
2021–0013’’ 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,
SUMMARY:
1 Final Critical Minerals List 2018 https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/18/
2018-10667/ final-list-of-critical-minerals-2018.
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
71084
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 14, 2021 / Notices
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
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
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
18:24 Dec 13, 2021
Jkt 256001
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;
(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;
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 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(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
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
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
71085
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 14, 2021 / Notices
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 ...............................
47 ...............................
48 ...............................
49 ...............................
50 ...............................
51 ...............................
52 ...............................
53 ...............................
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 ...............................
Mica ................................
Selenium .........................
Cadmium ........................
Zirconium ........................
Molybdenum ...................
Gold ................................
Helium ............................
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 ...............................
No ...............................
No ...............................
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 .................
Not applicable .................
Not applicable .................
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 .....................
No .....................
No .....................
No .....................
Yes ...................
No .....................
No .....................
Yes ...................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Dec 13, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
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.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
71086
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 14, 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
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?
Iron ore ...........................
Cesium ...........................
Erbium ............................
Europium ........................
Gadolinium .....................
Holmium .........................
Lutetium ..........................
Rubidium ........................
Scandium ........................
Terbium ..........................
Thulium ...........................
Uranium ..........................
Ytterbium ........................
No ...............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Yes .............................
Not evaluated .............
Yes .............................
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 .....................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
Yes ...................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Table 1 5 6 7 8 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.
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
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
18:24 Dec 13, 2021
Jkt 256001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Predominantly
recovered as
byproduct? 6
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
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
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
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 14, 2021 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
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 January 10, 2022, to
facilitate consideration. We will still
accept comments received in the gap
period. 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: December 9, 2021.
James D. Applegate,
Associate Director for Natural Hazards,
Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Geological Survey.
[FR Doc. 2021–27001 Filed 12–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4338–11–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Dec 13, 2021
Jkt 256001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[20X.LLAZC03000.L51050000.
EA0000.LVRCA20SA090; AZ–SRP–030–15–
01]
Notice of Temporary Closure and
Temporary Restrictions of Selected
Public Lands in La Paz County, AZ
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of temporary closure and
restrictions.
AGENCY:
As authorized under the
provisions of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976, as
amended, notice is hereby given that
temporary closures and temporary
restrictions of activities will be in effect
on public lands administered by the
Lake Havasu Field Office, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) to minimize
the risk of potential collisions with
spectators and racers during the annual
Best in the Desert (BITD) off-highway
vehicle (OHV) race events, Parker 250
and Parker 425, authorized under a
Special Recreation Permit (SRP).
DATES: This notice is effective upon
publication. The temporary restrictions
for the Parker 250 take effect at 11:59
p.m., January 4, 2022, through 11:59
p.m., January 9, 2022. The temporary
closure for the Parker 250 takes effect at
11:59 p.m., January 5, 2022, through
11:59 p.m., January 9, 2022. The
temporary restrictions for the Parker 425
take effect at 11:59 p.m., January 18,
2022, through 11:59 p.m., January 23,
2022. The temporary closure for the
Parker 425 takes effect at 11:59 p.m.,
January 19, 2022, through 11:59 p.m.,
January 23, 2022. All times are listed in
local time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jason West, Field Manager, BLM Lake
Havasu Field Office, 1785 Kiowa
Avenue, Lake Havasu City, Arizona
86403, telephone: (928) 505–1200;
email: jrwest@blm.gov. Also see the
Lake Havasu Field Office website:
https://www.blm.gov/office/lakehavasu-field-office. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for hearing
impaired (TDD) may call the Federal
Relay Service (FRS) at (800) 877–8339 to
contact Mr. West during normal
business hours. FRS is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a
message or question. You will receive a
reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 6, 2015, the Decision Record
authorizing the BITD Parker Races SRP
was signed. This permit authorizes the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71087
BITD to utilize the Parker 400 course for
the Parker 250 race event on January 6
through 9, 2022, and for the Parker 425
race event on January 20 through 23,
2022. The permit is authorized from
2015 through 2024. The Environmental
Assessment analyzing these routes (EA
#DOI–BLM–AZ–C030–2014–0040)
concluded that allowing permitted
motorized racers exclusive use of the
Lake Havasu Field Office Record of
Decision/Approved Resource
Management Plan (2007) designated
Parker 400 course would mitigate safety
concerns. These routes receive the most
intense and concentrated high-speed
use during the two annual permitted
events.
These temporary closures and
restrictions affect public lands in and
around the Parker 400 course near the
communities of Parker and Bouse in La
Paz County, Arizona. The temporary
closure applies to all public use,
including pedestrian and vehicles,
unless excepted. The temporary closure
area follows the Parker 400 course as
designated in the 2007 Lake Havasu
Resource Management Plan.
Within the temporary restriction area,
the temporary restrictions apply in
addition to all existing regulations. The
temporary restriction area begins on
public lands east of the eastern
boundary of the Colorado River Indian
Tribe (CRIT) Reservation, along Shea
Road, then east into Osborne Wash onto
the Parker-Swansea Road to the Central
Arizona Project (CAP) Canal, then north
on the west side of the CAP Canal,
crossing the canal on the countymaintained road, running northeast into
Mineral Wash Canyon, then southeast
on the county-maintained road, through
the four-corners intersection to the
Midway (Pit) intersection, then east on
Transmission Pass Road, through State
Trust Land located in Butler Valley,
turning north into Cunningham Wash to
North Tank, continuing south to
Transmission Pass Road and east
(reentering public land) within two
miles of Alamo Dam Road. The
temporary restriction area boundary
turns south and west onto the wooden
power line road, onto the State Trust
Land in Butler Valley, turning
southwest into Cunningham Wash to
the Graham Well, intersecting Butler
Valley Road, then north and west on the
county-maintained road to the ‘‘Bouse
Y’’ intersection, two miles north of
Bouse, Arizona. The temporary
restriction area boundary proceeds
north, paralleling the Bouse-Swansea
Road to the Midway (Pit) intersection,
then west along the north boundary
(power line) road of the East Cactus
Plain Wilderness Area to Parker-
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71083-71087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27001]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Geological Survey
[GX22GS00EMMA900]
Extension of Public Comment Period for the 2021 Draft List of
Critical Minerals
AGENCY: Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of extension, reopening the public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S Geological Survey published a document in the Federal
Register on November 9, 2021, that presented a description of the
methodology used to identify a draft list of critical minerals; a draft
list of minerals, elements, substances, and materials that qualify as
critical minerals; \1\ and a draft list of critical minerals recovered
as byproducts and their host minerals. This notice announces a 32-day
extension of the public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final Critical Minerals List 2018 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/18/2018-10667/ final-list-
of-critical-minerals-2018.
DATES: The comment period for the notice published November 9, 2021, 86
FR 62201, is reopened. Comments will be received until January 10,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments online at https://www.regulations.gov by entering ``DOI- 2021-0013'' 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,
[[Page 71084]]
[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 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
[[Page 71085]]
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
quantitative evaluation \5\ critical minerals? inclusion critical minerals? as 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.
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.
[[Page 71086]]
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 5 6 7 8 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
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
[[Page 71087]]
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 January 10,
2022, to facilitate consideration. We will still accept comments
received in the gap period. 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: December 9, 2021.
James D. Applegate,
Associate Director for Natural Hazards, Exercising the Delegated
Authority of the Director, U.S. Geological Survey.
[FR Doc. 2021-27001 Filed 12-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4338-11-P
