Notice2023-16611
Notice of Final Determination on 2023 DOE Critical Materials List
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 4, 2023
Issuing agencies
Energy Department
Abstract
By this notice, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) presents 2023 DOE Critical Materials List. This list includes critical materials for energy, as determined by the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Undersecretary for Science and Innovation, pursuant to authority under the Energy Act of 2020, as well as those critical minerals on the 2022 final list published by the Secretary of Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This notice also presents the assessment that forms the basis for the designation of critical materials for energy. The final 2023 DOE Critical Materials List includes certain critical materials for energy and critical minerals as listed below.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 149 (Friday, August 4, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 149 (Friday, August 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51792-51798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16611]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Final Determination on 2023 DOE Critical Materials List
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this notice, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) presents
2023 DOE Critical Materials List. This list includes critical materials
for energy, as determined by the Secretary of Energy, acting through
the Undersecretary for Science and Innovation, pursuant to authority
under the Energy Act of 2020, as well as those critical minerals on the
2022 final list published by the Secretary of Interior, acting through
the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This notice also
presents the assessment that forms the basis for the designation of
critical materials for energy. The final 2023 DOE Critical Materials
List includes certain critical materials for energy and critical
minerals as listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions may be addressed to Helena
Khazdozian, 202-586-9236, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a727f767f747b3471727b607e7560737b745a7f7f347e757f347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d25282128232c6326252c37292237242c230d282863292228632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.
DATES: Applicable: July 28, 2023.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 7002(a)(2) of the Energy Act of 2020
defines ``critical materials'' to be: (A) Any non-fuel mineral,
element, substance, or material that the Secretary of Energy determines
(i) has high risk for supply chain disruption; and (ii) serves an
essential function in one or more energy technologies, including
technologies that produce, transmit, store, and conserve energy
[referred to here as a critical material for energy]; or (B) a critical
mineral [as designated by the Secretary of the Interior].\1\ The Final
2023 DOE Critical Materials List includes the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 30 U.S.C. 1606(a)(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Critical materials for energy: aluminum, cobalt, copper*,
dysprosium, electrical steel* (grain-oriented electrical steel, non-
grain-oriented electrical steel, and amorphous steel), fluorine,
gallium, iridium, lithium, magnesium, natural graphite, neodymium,
nickel, platinum, praseodymium, terbium, silicon*, and silicon
carbide*.
<bullet> Critical minerals: The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), published a
2022 final list of critical minerals that includes the following 50
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.''
* Indicates materials not designated as critical minerals by the
Secretary of
[[Page 51793]]
Interior. The critical materials for energy included on the Final 2023
DOE Critical Material List \2\ are based on the criticality assessed in
the short- and medium-term.\3\ A detailed description of DOE's
methodology can be found in the assessment.\4\ The materials on the
Final 2023 DOE Critical Materials List will inform crosscutting
priorities including, but not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ <a href="https://www.energy.gov/cmm/what-are-critical-materials-and-critical-minerals">https://www.energy.gov/cmm/what-are-critical-materials-and-critical-minerals</a>.
\3\ Several substances listed as critical materials for energy
were also included on the U.S. Geological Survey's 2022 Final List
of Critical Minerals. DOE's inclusion of these substances on its
list is intended to signal the results of its criticality
assessment. Under Section 7002(a), however, designation as a
critical mineral is sufficient to make the substance a critical
material.
\4\ <a href="https://www.energy.gov/cmm/critical-minerals-materials-program">https://www.energy.gov/cmm/critical-minerals-materials-program</a>.
<bullet> Critical Materials Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Commercial Application (RDD&CA) Program priorities
<bullet> Eligibility for the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) 48C tax
credit
Public Comment on the Draft Critical Materials List
Pursuant to authority in section 7002(a)(2) of the Energy Act of
2020, on May 3, 2023, DOE published via the EERE Exchange website a
Notice of Intent \5\ to issue a Request for Information (RFI) \6\ on
the Proposed Determination of the Draft Critical Materials List and
Draft Critical Materials Assessment. The RFI was published via the EERE
Exchange on May 31, 2023. The RFI provided for a 20-day public comment
period, and closed on June 20, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ <a href="https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId6322a11b-4cb4-4ac7-96a2-a6814bc5fbf9">https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId6322a11b-4cb4-4ac7-96a2-a6814bc5fbf9</a>.
\6\ <a href="https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId82fa533b-3d3e-4b49-839d-9ddf13d56f40">https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId82fa533b-3d3e-4b49-839d-9ddf13d56f40</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received 79 comments during the comment period. Three comments
were from individuals and 76 were submitted on behalf of organizations.
Due to time constraints, comments received after the deadline were not
taken into consideration for this assessment. DOE may take these
comments into consideration for future assessments and determinations.
Additionally, DOE received some comments that were out of scope or
otherwise not responsive to the requests included in the RFI. DOE
considered all of the responsive comments received before the
submission deadline and below is a summary of DOE's responses.
The following revisions to the Draft DOE Critical Materials List
were made based on the comments received:
<bullet> Terbium was added to the Final 2023 DOE Critical Materials
List as a critical material for energy. Terbium was screened and then
fully assessed for criticality based on information provided through
the comments received. Based on that analysis, DOE has determined that
terbium meets the definition of critical materials as defined in the
Energy Act of 2020. More detail is provided in the Critical Material
Assessment.
The following actions were taken based on the comments received,
but did not change the results of the Critical Materials Assessment:
<bullet> Boron was revisited based on the comments that in addition
to neodymium iron boron magnets, boron is important for additional
clean energy end-uses including wind turbine blades, boron-doped
photovoltaics, and battery coatings. DOE's conclusion is that there is
a lack of substantiated data that quantifies the use of boron in these
applications, including electric glass for wind turbine blades, and
thus these applications would not drive a significant increase in
demand for boron.
<bullet> Phosphorous was revisited based on the comments that
phosphorous demand is expected to experience a shortfall for use in
lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, geoconcentration of production
outside the U.S., and that agriculture is a competing use. DOE provides
further clarification that the Critical Materials Assessment considered
high LFP adoption scenarios, geoconcentration of production outside the
U.S., and agriculture as a competing use in the assessment of
phosphorous. More details can be found in the Critical Materials
Assessment report in section 4.3.15. Ultimately, phosphorous was not
assessed to be critical under the DOE methodology.
DOE received a comment advocating the exclusion of copper from the
Final 2023 DOE Critical Materials List based on (1) the results of the
USGS methodology \7\ to determine the 2022 Final List of Critical
Minerals and (2) the potential to accelerate mining of copper under the
IRA 48C tax credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ <a href="https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20211045">https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20211045</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Regarding point (1), it should be noted that the
methodologies employed by the USGS and DOE have several distinctions.
While the USGS methodology is a supply-side approach that uses
historical data to determine criticality within the context of the U.S.
economy and national security, the DOE methodology is forward looking--
incorporating global demand trajectories based on growth scenarios for
various energy technologies, coupled with assumptions about the
material intensity of those technologies, to determine criticality
within the context of clean energy.
<bullet> Regarding point (2), critical materials eligibility for
the IRA 48C tax credit is specifically for processing, refining, or
recycling of critical materials.
DOE received a comment stating that uranium should not be excluded
from the Final 2023 DOE Critical Materials List based on its
categorization as a fuel-mineral because uranium does not meet the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) definition of a fuel, ``material
used to produce heat or power by burning.'' As noted in the RFI and
accompanying proposed assessment, uranium was assessed for criticality
under this methodology and met the threshold to be included on the list
of critical materials for energy. However, section 7002(a) of the
Energy Act of 2020 restricts the listing of critical materials to ``any
non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or material'' and therefore DOE
is not designating uranium as a critical material at this time. DOE
further responds noting the following:
<bullet> What EPA ``considers a fuel to be'' \8\ for the purpose of
its risk management programs for chemical accident prevention is not
determinative of what is a fuel mineral, element, substance, or
material element that DOE is required to exclude from the Critical
Materials List by section 7002(a) of the Energy Act of 2020. The
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines fuel to include, not only a material
used to produce heat or power by burning, but also ``a material from
which atomic energy can be liberated especially in a reactor.'' \9\
Uranium used in commercial nuclear plants clearly meets this definition
of a fuel material. Therefore, based on the plain meaning of fuel, DOE
concludes that uranium used in commercial nuclear reactors is a fuel
material. Based on the Critical Materials Assessment, which includes
only use of uranium as a fuel, DOE is not designating uranium as a
critical material at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Definition of Fuel,
https://www.epa.gov/rmp/definition-
fuel#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20regulatory%20definition,heat%20or%20po
wer%20by%20burning (``There is no regulatory definition of fuel;
however, EPA considers a fuel to be a material used to produce heat
or power by burning.'').
\9\ <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fuel">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fuel</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received several comments that provided information that may
have the
[[Page 51794]]
potential to adjust the criticality analyses of materials already
included on the USGS Critical Minerals List. These comments were
considered but ultimately not included in this determination, as such
minerals are by definition already deemed to be critical materials.
However, DOE may use the information to inform future assessments and
activities related to critical materials for energy.
DOE received several comments advocating for increasing the scores
of importance to energy or potential for supply risk within the
Critical Materials Assessment for several materials on the Draft
Critical Materials List, including copper and silicon. These comments
were not taken into account for this assessment but may be considered
to inform future assessments and activities at DOE.
DOE received many comments about the scope of the assessment. The
following explanation and clarification are provided:
<bullet> Section 7002(a)(2) of the Energy Act of 2020 authorized
the Secretary of Energy to determine critical materials according to
the statutory definition:
[cir] Any non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or material that
the Secretary of Energy determines:
[ssquf] Has high risk for supply chain disruption; and
[ssquf] Serves an essential function in one or more energy
technologies, including technologies that produce, transmit, store, and
conserve energy; or
[cir] A critical mineral [as designated by the Secretary of the
Interior].\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 30 U.S.C. 1606(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> DOE has interpreted energy technologies to be ``clean
energy'' technologies in alignment with the DOE Critical Minerals and
Materials Vision and Strategy.\11\ The anticipated unprecedented
increase in demand for critical minerals and materials is driven by the
global deployment of clean energy technologies to achieve net-zero
goals by 2050. The International Energy Agency has estimated the demand
for critical minerals and materials will increase by 400% to 600% by
2040 to achieve these goals.\12\ The specific energy technologies \13\
considered in this assessment are described in Chapter 2 of the
Critical Materials Assessment and are aligned with the technologies DOE
assessed as part of ``America's Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for
a Robust Clean Energy Transition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ <a href="https://www.energy.gov/cmm/critical-minerals-materials-program">https://www.energy.gov/cmm/critical-minerals-materials-program</a>.
\12\ <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions">https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions</a>.
\13\ Vehicles, stationary storage, hydrogen electrolyzers, solar
energy, wind energy, nuclear energy, electric grid, solid state
lighting, and microchips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> DOE conducted the Critical Materials Assessment to inform
the determination under section 7002(a)(2). The methodology applied in
the DOE Critical Materials Assessment has several unique features:
[cir] It is forward looking, incorporating global demand
trajectories based on growth scenarios for various energy technologies,
coupled with assumptions about the material intensity of those
technologies.
[cir] A limited set of engineered materials was assessed.
<bullet> The scope of materials assessed included a limited set of
engineered materials: electrical steel and silicon carbide. This set of
engineered materials was selected based on two factors: (1) the
materials were found to have high potential for supply risk in the
``supply chain deep dive'' reports as part of ``America's Strategy to
Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition''; and (2)
the elements comprising the engineered materials (such as iron for
electrical steel) were unlikely to be found critical and thus not
indicate the risk posed to deploying energy technologies. Prior to the
passage of the Energy Act of 2020, materials assessed for criticality
were generally limited to an element. In practice, the designation of a
critical material as an element does not restrict the mitigation
strategies prioritized by DOE to be limited to the elemental form. For
example, neodymium has been found to be critical in the past and
mitigation strategies pursued by DOE include unlocking new sources,
developing alternative magnets that reduce or eliminate the use of
neodymium, improving efficiency of separation and metallization of
neodymium as well as neodymium-based alloys and magnets, and recycling
neodymium from end-of-life magnets.
[cir] Further clarification is provided on the definition of
electrical steel. For the purposes of this assessment, electrical steel
includes grain-oriented electrical steel, non-grain-oriented electrical
steel, and amorphous steel.
<bullet> The scope of materials analyzed does not include materials
that are used indirectly in the manufacturing process but do not
contribute to the composition of the components or final products. For
example, helium is used in cooling, cleaning, and creating an inert
environment for semiconductors but it is not a constituent material of
the semiconductor. While a disruption in helium supply chain can impact
semiconductor production, the scope of this assessment has not been
extended to indirect material use. DOE may consider the examination of
materials used indirectly in manufacturing processes in future
assessments.
DOE received many comments with recommendations to improve the
methodology applied in the Critical Materials Assessment. DOE
anticipates updating the assessment every three years and may evaluate
these recommendations for future assessments. Such future assessments
will inform additional critical materials determinations, as
appropriate.
The following table summarizes a subset of the relevant comments
received, categorized by material, and describes DOE's response. This
does not include comments on the improvements for the methodology, or
the scope of the assessment which are discussed previously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Material On the USGS list? On the draft DOE On the final DOE comments Summary of comment(s) DOE action
list? list? received
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum....................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 5 Aluminum score should No action: Aluminum is
increase in short- already on the USGS
term and medium-term and DOE lists. DOE
due to supply risk may consider this
(low producer input for future
diversity--China) and assessments and
importance to energy activities.
(more end-uses than
considered in
assessment).
Antimony....................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 2 Antimony should be on No action: Antimony is
the list. Antimony already on the USGS
compounds used in list and no
electronics and for substantial data or
fire-retardance. information were
provided.
[[Page 51795]]
Beryllium...................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 Beryllium should be on No action: Beryllium
the list--important is already on the
for solar USGS list and no data
photovoltaics (PV), were provided.
nuclear, electric
vehicle (EV)
batteries. Data NOT
provided. Most
beryllium is imported
from Kazakhstan.
Boron.......................... No............... No............... No............... 8 Boron should be on the DOE revisited the
list and is used in assessment of boron.
more end-uses than DOE is not aware of
Neodymium Iron Boron any substantiated
magnets (wind turbine data that quantifies
blades, boron-doped the use of boron in
photovoltaics, electric glass for
battery coatings). wind turbine blades
There is increased or that the use of
international demand boron in these end-
for boron. use applications is
driving significant
increase in demand
for boron.
Bromine........................ No............... No............... No............... 1 Bromine should be No action: Zinc
considered for the bromide batteries are
list--important to currently an emerging
zinc bromide battery technology
batteries. with uncertainty in
future deployment.
Butyllithium................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Butyllithium should be No action: The scope
on the list-- of materials for this
important for assessment does not
manufacturing of include materials
``green'' tires and that are used
lightweight indirectly in the
automotive interior. manufacturing process
but do not contribute
to the composition of
the components or
final products. DOE
may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
Carbon Fiber................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Should be assessed for No Action. The scope
wind turbine blades. of materials assessed
included a limited
set of engineered
materials: electrical
steel and silicon
carbide. This set of
engineered materials
were selected based
on two factors: (1)
they were found to
have high potential
for supply risk in
the ``supply chain
deep dive'' reports
as part of
``America's Strategy
to Secure the Supply
Chain for a Robust
Clean Energy
Transition,'' and (2)
the elements
comprising the
engineered materials
(such as iron for
electrical steel)
were unlikely to be
found critical and
thus would not
indicate the risk
posed to deploying
energy technologies.
Cerium......................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 The risks associated No action: Cerium was
with the not assessed for
overproduction of material criticality.
elements like cerium Cerium is on the USGS
are overstated in the list.
assessment.
Cobalt......................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 6 Information on No action: Cobalt is
dependency on already on the USGS
Democratic Republic list. DOE may
of Congo and China. consider this input
LFP/LFMP (lithium for future
iron phosphate/ assessments and
lithium iron- activities.
manganese-phosphate)
technology will
reduce cobalt
dependency for
batteries. Most
mining and processing
of cobalt occurs
outside the U.S.
Copper......................... No............... Yes.............. Yes.............. 9 Copper score should No Action. Copper is
increase based on already on DOE draft
importance to energy list. DOE may
(more end-uses than consider this input
considered in for future assessment
assessment) and and activities. (1)
supply risk. Copper The methodologies
should not be on the employed by the USGS
list because: (1) it and DOE have several
is not on the USGS distinctions. While
list and (2) will the USGS methodology
incentivize mining is a supply-side
through the IRA 48C approach that uses
tax credit and most historical data to
copper deposits are determine criticality
within 35 miles of within the context of
Native American the economy and
Reservations. national security,
the DOE methodology
is forward looking--
incorporating demand
trajectories based on
growth scenarios for
various energy
technologies, coupled
with assumptions
about the material
intensity of those
technologies, to
determine criticality
within the context of
clean energy. (2)
Critical materials
eligibility for the
IRA 48C tax credit is
specifically for
processing, refining,
or recycling of
critical materials.
Dysprosium..................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 1 Add dysprosium to No action: Dysprosium
critical materials is already on the
list because of its USGS list and DOE
use in magnets. draft list.
Electrical Steel............... No............... Yes.............. Yes.............. 1 Limitations on No action: Electrical
substitutability steel is already on
between non-grain the DOE draft list.
oriented steels, DOE will consider
grain oriented this input for future
steels, and amorphous assessments and
steel. activities.
Fluorine....................... No............... Yes.............. Yes.............. 2 Fluorine-based No action: Fluorine is
compounds are used in already on the DOE
lithium-ion batteries. draft list.
Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). No............... No............... No............... 1 Extend analysis of No action: A limited
fluorine to include set of engineered
suspension grade PVDF materials was
due to complexity of assessed: electrical
high-grade production steel and silicon
and limited carbide. In practice,
production capability designation as a
and anticipated critical material is
increase in demand. generally limited to
an element, but does
not restrict the
mitigation strategies
prioritized by DOE to
be limited to the
elemental form.
[[Page 51796]]
Gallium........................ Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 1 Gallium's role in off- No action: Gallium is
shore magnets was not already on the USGS
well defined. Should list and DOE draft
be listed as critical list.
to solar cells and
power electronics.
Gallium Nitride................ No............... No............... No............... 2 Gallium nitride should No action: Gallium
be on list for its nitride was
use. considered, but it
did not meet the
threshold of the
screening step of DOE
methodology.
Gold........................... No............... No............... No............... 2 Gold should be on list Gold is outside the
due to competing uses scope based on the
and potential source definitions of energy
of critical materials technologies.
as byproducts.
Graphite--natural.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 2 U.S. has no domestic No action: Graphite is
natural graphite already on the USGS
mines. list and DOE draft
list.
Graphite--synthetic............ Yes.............. No............... No............... 6 Capacitors and No action: Graphite
supercapacitors are (natural graphite and
also end-uses. No synthetic graphite)
data provided. is already on the
Synthetic graphite USGS list and no data
has superior were provided.
performance in EV
batteries. Has
multiple applications
in nuclear, molten
salt reactors. Most
synthetic graphite is
produced outside the
U.S.
Helium......................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Helium, antimony, No action: The scope
tungsten, and tin of materials for this
should be on the assessment does not
list. Helium is include materials
important for that are indirectly
advanced technology used in the
and energy technology. manufacturing process
but not contributing
to the composition of
the components or
final products. DOE
may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
Iridium........................ Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 2 U.S. needs to be No action: Iridium is
strategic in already on the USGS
importing iridium. list and DOE draft
list.
Iron ore....................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Iron ore fits the Iron ore is outside
description of a the scope based on
critical material due the definitions of
to its widespread energy technologies.
applications.
Lanthanum...................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 It is recommended that No action: Lanthanum
the DOE investigates was considered, but
the components needed it did not meet the
for rare earth threshold of the
elements (REE) screening step of DOE
containing steels for methodology.
carbon dioxide and Lanthanum is on the
hydrogen pipelines. USGS list.
Lead........................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Lead batteries provide No action: Lead is
most back up battery outside the scope
power for based on the
telecommunications definitions of energy
industry. technologies.
International demand
for lead will begin
to outpace US demand
in the near term.
There is no domestic
primary lead
production.
Lithium........................ Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 5 Need more domestic No action: Lithium is
lithium production already on the USGS
facilities. Consider list and DOE draft
upgrading lithium as list. DOE will
critical in short- consider this input
term in Section 3.1.2. for future
assessments and
activities.
Manganese...................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 2 Manganese should be on No action: Manganese
list due to lack of is already on the
domestic USGS list and no data
capabilities, were provided.
particularly for
battery-grade
manganese. Data not
provided. DOE should
recognize the
difference between
bulk mined manganese
used in steel-making
and high purity
manganese for
batteries. China
controls 95% of
global battery grade
manganese processing.
Molyb-denum.................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Molybdenum should be No action: Molybdenum
the list due to its was not found to be
use in high strength material of concern
steels used in in the DOE Wind
vehicle lightening Energy Supply Chain
and energy Deep Dive.
infrastructure (wind Assessment.\14\ DOE
turbine supports). may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
Neodymium...................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 2 Recommends DOE to No action: Neodymium
investigate the is already on the
components needed for USGS list and DOE
REE-bearing steels draft list. DOE may
needed for carbon consider this input
dioxide and hydrogen for future
pipelines. In the assessments and
assessment, neodymium activities.
should be considered
critical for
applications in
motors.
Nickel......................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 2 Nickel as a copper No action: Nickel is
byproduct should be already on the DOE
seen as a factor that draft list. DOE may
reduces supply risk. consider this input
for future
assessments and
activities.
Palladium...................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 3 Palladium and rhodium No action: Palladium
should be on the is already on the
list. Potential USGS list. DOE may
substitute for consider this input
platinum and iridium for future
in fuel cells and assessments and
electrolyzers. activities.
Phosphates..................... No............... No............... No............... 3 Phosphates should be No action: A limited
on the list. set of engineered
Phosphates are a materials was
potential precursor assessed: electrical
material for LFP steel and silicon
batteries, and the carbide. In practice,
usage competes with designation as a
agricultural and food critical material is
industry uses. generally limited to
an element, but does
not restrict the
mitigation strategies
prioritized by DOE to
be limited to the
elemental form.
[[Page 51797]]
Phosphorus..................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Phosphorus is DOE revisited the
important for assessment of
agriculture and phosphorous. DOE
production is provides further
geoconcentrated clarification that
outside U.S. Critical Materials
Phosphorus demand for Assessment considered
lithium iron high LFP adoption
phosphate (LFP) scenarios,
batteries is expected geoconcentration of
to experience production outside
shortfall in supply. the U.S., and
Most battery grade agriculture as a
phosphorus has to be competing use in the
imported. assessment of
phosphorous. More
details can be found
in the Critical
Materials Assessment
report in Section
4.3.15. While
phosphorous passed
the initial screen,
ultimately, it was
not assessed as
critical under the
DOE methodology.
Platinum....................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 3 Platinum supply not a No action: Platinum is
risk in short-term. already on the USGS
Propose addition of list and DOE draft
fuel cell list. DOE may
applications to end- consider this input
use and align for future
platinum as Tier 1. assessments and
Remove electrolyzers activities.
as an end-use
application and
replace with ``energy
conservation''
category.
Rhodium........................ Yes.............. No............... No............... 2 Palladium and rhodium No action: Rhodium is
should be on the already on the USGS
list. Potential list. DOE may
substitute for consider this input
platinum and iridium for future
in fuel cells and assessments and
electrolyzers. activities.
Silicon........................ No............... Yes.............. Yes.............. 6 Silicon should be on No action: Silicon is
the list. There are already on the DOE
multiple uses for draft list. DOE may
silicon: photovoltaic consider this input
solar cells, for future
semiconductors, assessments and
silicones, activities.
metallurgical
processing. China
produces over 70% of
silicon.
Silicon carbide................ No............... Yes.............. Yes.............. 1 Needed for wide band- No action: Silicon
gap semiconductors. carbide is already on
Demand is likely to the DOE draft list.
exceed supply. DOE may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
Silicon metal.................. No............... No............... No............... 2 China dominates No Action. A limited
silicon metal set of engineered
production. Silicon materials was
metal should be assessed: electrical
analyzed as a steel and silicon
separate material for carbide. In practice,
short- and long-term designation as a
scarcity. critical material is
generally limited to
an element, but does
not restrict the
mitigation strategies
prioritized by DOE to
be limited to the
elemental form.
Silver......................... No............... No............... No............... 2 Silver should be on Sliver was not found
list due to competing to be material of
uses and potential concern in the DOE
source of critical Solar Photovoltaics
materials as Supply Chain Deep
byproducts. Dive Assessment.\15\
DOE may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
Terbium........................ Yes.............. No............... Yes.............. 2 Terbium should be on Terbium was screened
the list--important and assessed for
for neodymium-iron- NdFeB magnets. Based
boron (NdFeB) magnets on the assessment,
(equally so as DOE has determined
dysprosium). that terbium is on
the Final DOE
Critical Materials
List as a critical
material for energy.
Tin............................ Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 Tin should be on the No action: Tin is
list. already on the USGS
list and no
substantial data or
information were
provided.
Titanium....................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 Titanium should be on No action: Titanium is
the list--important already on the USGS
for fuel cells and list. Titanium is
lightweighting. unlikely to pass
screening due to
importance for
lightweighting being
primarily outside of
energy end-use
applications. DOE may
consider this input
for future
assessments and
activities.
Tungsten....................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 Helium, antimony, No action: Tungsten is
tungsten, and tin already on the USGS
should be on list. list and no
substantial data or
information were
provided.
Uranium........................ No............... No............... No............... 3 Uranium should be on No action: As
list due to foreign described above, for
reliance. Uranium is the purposes of the
not a fuel and assessment, DOE has
doesn't meet the EPA determined that
definition for fuel. uranium used in
commercial nuclear
power reactors is a
fuel based on the
plain meaning of
fuel.
Vanadium....................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 Vanadium is needed for No action: Vanadium is
the emerging battery already on the USGS
technology of ``flow list. DOE will
batteries''. consider this input
for future
assessments and
activities.
Xenon.......................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Xenon should be No action: The scope
considered--important of materials for this
for manufacturing of assessment does not
energy tech. include materials
that are used
indirectly in the
manufacturing process
but not contributing
to the composition of
the components or
final products. DOE
may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51798]]
Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was
signed on July 28, 2023, by Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Undersecretary for
Science and Innovation pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date
is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Wind%20Supply%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final%202.25.22.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Wind%20Supply%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final%202.25.22.pdf</a>.
\15\ <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Solar%20Energy%20Supply%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Solar%20Energy%20Supply%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf</a>.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-16611 Filed 8-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 4, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.