1). Federal Agencies Primarily Focus on Risk Assessment and Research but Also Conduct a Range of Other Activities Related to Critical Materials Supply

Federal agencies are primarily focused on two areas of activity related to  critical materials supply—assessing risk and supporting research—in  addition to conducting a range of other activities. Agencies’ other critical  materials activities include stockpiling or producing materials and  reviewing and approving resource extraction projects, among other  efforts. DOE. Commerce. Interior. Federal Approach to Addressing Critical Materials Supply Has Strengths but Is Not Consistent with Selected Collaboration Key Practices and Has Other Limitations

The federal government’s approach to addressing critical materials supply  issues has areas of strength, according to experts we surveyed, but is not  consistent with selected key practices for enhancing and sustaining  interagency collaboration and has other limitations. As an interagency working group and according to its charter, the  Subcommittee is to facilitate a strong, coordinated effort across its  member agencies on critical minerals activities. These practices include agreeing on  roles and responsibilities; establishing mutually reinforcing or joint  strategies; and developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report  on results. Relatedly, another expert noted that Commerce  does not have a clearly defined role to support critical materials important  to the economy. By  taking steps to actively engage all member agencies in its efforts and  clearly define roles and responsibilities, the Subcommittee will have more  reasonable assurance that it can effectively marshal the potential  contributions of all member agencies to take full advantage of their  expertise and resources to help identify and mitigate critical materials  supply risks. These include limitations in the federal government’s  engagement with industry to identify U.S. critical material needs, with data  to identify and assess risks and the Subcommittee’s focus on only a  subset of critical materials, and in the Subcommittee’s focus on domestic  production of critical materials. Commerce is responsible for soliciting information from a range of  industry sectors to help identify and assess cases of materials needs. However, Commerce officials could not  identify any recent assessments on critical materials by the department. Because Commerce is not engaging with industry stakeholders across a  range of industrial sectors to identify materials of concern, it may not have  the comprehensive, current information it needs to fulfill its responsibilities  under the 1980 Act to continually identify and assess cases of materials  needs. Finally, Commerce has not engaged with  industry stakeholders to solicit information across a range of industrial  sectors. Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance the ability of the Executive Office of the President to  coordinate federal agencies to carry out the national materials policy  outlined in the 1980 Act, we recommend that the Director of the Office of  Science and Technology Policy, working with the National Science and  Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Critical and Strategic Mineral  Supply Chains and agency leadership, as appropriate, take the following  five actions:
To strengthen the federal approach to addressing critical materials  supply issues through enhanced interagency collaboration, the  Subcommittee should agree on and clearly define the roles and responsibilities of  member agencies and take steps to actively engage all relevant  federal agencies in the Subcommittee’s efforts; develop joint strategies that articulate common outcomes and  identify contributing agencies’ efforts; and develop a mechanism to monitor, evaluate, and periodically report  on the progress of member agencies’ efforts. However, as we state in the report, there are a number of Subcommittee  member agencies that do not have clear roles within the Subcommittee’s  efforts and have had limited or no involvement in the Subcommittee’s  work on critical materials. To evaluate the federal government’s approach to addressing critical  materials supply issues, we developed and disseminated a two-stage,  web-based survey to a nongeneralizable sample of 46 critical materials  experts.
Why GAO Did This Study

Certain metals, minerals, and other “critical” raw materials play an important role in the production of advanced technologies across a range of industrial sectors and defense applications. Recently, concentration of the supply of some critical materials under foreign control has renewed questions about the U.S. government's and industry's ability to address potential supply disruptions.
GAO was asked to examine U.S. efforts to identify and strategically plan for critical materials supply issues. Among other objectives, this report (1) describes federal agencies' activities related to the supply of critical materials and (2) evaluates the federal government's approach to addressing critical materials supply issues. GAO reviewed relevant laws, agency documents, and academic studies; interviewed federal officials; and conducted a two-stage web-based survey of a nongeneralizable sample of critical materials experts selected to cover a range of subject matter areas.

What GAO Found

Federal agencies are primarily focused on two areas of activity related to critical materials supply—assessing risk and supporting research. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE) has conducted two criticality assessments on materials important to clean energy applications and manages the Critical Materials Institute—a 5-year, $120 million investment aimed at mitigating risks by diversifying supply, providing alternatives to existing materials, and improving recycling and reuse. In addition, agencies conduct a range of other critical materials related activities, including stockpiling or producing materials, and reviewing and approving resource extraction projects, among other efforts.
The federal approach to addressing critical materials supply has areas of strength but is not consistent with selected key practices for interagency collaboration and faces other limitations, as shown below.
According to its charter, the Subcommittee on Critical and Strategic Mineral Supply Chains (Subcommittee)—co-chaired by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), DOE, and the Department of the Interior—is to facilitate a strong, coordinated effort across its member agencies on critical materials activities. However, the Subcommittee's efforts have not been consistent with selected key practices for interagency collaboration, including agreeing on roles and responsibilities; establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; and developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results. For example, some member agencies do not have a clear role in the Subcommittee's efforts and have had limited or no involvement in its work. By taking steps to actively engage all member agencies in its efforts and clearly define roles and responsibilities, the Subcommittee would have more reasonable assurance that it can effectively marshal the potential contributions of all member agencies to help identify and mitigate critical materials supply risks.
Other limitations to the federal approach to addressing critical materials supply include limited engagement with industry and a limited focus on domestic production. For example, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is required by law to identify and assess cases of materials needs. However, Commerce does not solicit information from stakeholders across a range of industrial sectors. As a result, Commerce may not have comprehensive, current information across a range of industrial sectors to help it identify and assess materials needs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making six recommendations, including that OSTP take steps to improve interagency collaboration by, for example, defining Subcommittee member roles and responsibilities and that Commerce engage with stakeholders to continually identify and assess critical materials needs across industrial sectors. Commerce agreed. OSTP agreed with one and neither agreed nor disagreed with the other four recommendations but discussed how roles and responsibilities are defined, among other things. GAO continues to believe these steps are needed, as discussed in the report.