[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 149 (Friday, August 4, 2023)] [Notices] [Pages 51792-51798] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [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, [email protected]. 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) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------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*. 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\ https://www.energy.gov/cmm/what-are-critical-materials-and-critical-minerals. \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\ https://www.energy.gov/cmm/critical-minerals-materials-program. Critical Materials Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application (RDD&CA) Program priorities 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\ https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId6322a11b-4cb4-4ac7-96a2-a6814bc5fbf9. \6\ https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId82fa533b-3d3e-4b49-839d-9ddf13d56f40. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: 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: 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. 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\ https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20211045. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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: 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\ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fuel. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\ https://www.energy.gov/cmm/critical-minerals-materials-program. \12\ https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions. \13\ Vehicles, stationary storage, hydrogen electrolyzers, solar energy, wind energy, nuclear energy, electric grid, solid state lighting, and microchips. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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. 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\ https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Wind%20Supply%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final%202.25.22.pdf. \15\ https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Solar%20Energy%20Supply%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf. 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