[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 34 (Monday, February 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8061-8064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-3708]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Analysis of National Security Issues Associated With Specialty 
Metals

AGENCY: Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial 
Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics, DoD.

ACTION: Analysis of National Security Issues Associated with Specialty 
Metals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Specialty metals are not ``critical materials.'' There is no 
national security reason for the Department to take action to ensure a 
long term domestic supply of specialty metals.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Lowden, (703) 601-5003.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Congressional Direction

    Section 843 of Public Law 109-364 required the establishment of a 
Strategic Materials Protection Board (SMPB) composed of representatives 
of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretaries for Intelligence and 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Secretaries of the 
Military Departments. The SMPB is to determine the need to provide a 
long-term domestic supply of strategic materials designated as critical 
to national security, and analyze the risk associated with each 
material and the effect on national defense that non-availability from 
a domestic source would have. 10 U.S.C. 2533b ``Requirement to buy 
strategic materials critical to national security from American 
sources'' currently lists specialty metals as strategic materials 
critical to national security.
    In its Report to Congress of its meeting of July 17, 2007, the SMPB 
reported that it had formed, met, and agreed to initially focus its 
efforts on determining the need to take action to ensure a long term 
domestic supply of specialty metals as designated in 10 U.S.C. 2533b; 
and to direct the Board's Executive Secretary to conduct an initial 
analysis of national security issues associated with strategic 
materials (specialty metals); and to report the results of that 
analysis at the next SMPB meeting.
    The SMPB held its second meeting on December 12, 2008 during which 
the SMPB agreed that the term ``Strategic Material'' shall mean--A 
material (1) which is essential for important defense systems, (2) 
which is unique in the function it performs, and (3) for which there 
are no viable alternatives. Strategic Materials include those specialty 
metals listed in 10 U.S.C. 2533b, and any other materials the Board may 
designate.
    The SMPB also agreed that the term ``Material Critical to National 
Security'' (or ``Critical Material'') shall mean--A strategic material 
for which (1) the Department of Defense dominates the market for the 
material, (2) the Department's full and active involvement and support 
are necessary to sustain and shape the strategic direction of the 
market, and (3) there is significant and unacceptable risk of supply 
disruption due to vulnerable U.S. or qualified non-U.S. suppliers. 
Accordingly, the Board should initially focus its efforts on 
determining which strategic materials are ``materials critical to 
national security'' and require a long term domestic source of supply.
    The SMPB also validated an Initial Analysis of National Security 
Issues Associated with Strategic Materials.

B. Initial Analysis of National Security Issues Associated With 
Strategic Materials

Summary

    Reliable access to the materiel it needs is a bedrock requirement 
for the Department of Defense. However, reliable access does not always 
necessitate a domestic source.\1\ In fact, the Department wants to take 
full advantage of the competitive benefits offered by access to the 
best global suppliers; and to promote consistency and fairness in 
dealing with its allies, all the while assuring that an adequate 
industrial base is maintained to support defense needs. Consequently, 
the Department uses, and sometimes may be dependent on, reliable non-
U.S. suppliers. At the same time, the Department is not willing to 
accept foreign vulnerability which poses risks to national security. 
Non-U.S. suppliers represent a foreign vulnerability if their use would 
present an unacceptable risk that the Department would be unable to 
access the capabilities, products, or services that it needs, when it 
needs them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the purposes of this analysis, a domestic source is a 
member of the ``national technology and industrial base'' as defined 
in Title X of the United States Code, section 2500: ``persons and 
organizations that are engaged in research, development, production, 
or maintenance activities conducted within the United States and 
Canada.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The key finding of this analysis is that specialty metals, as 
defined in 10 U.S.C. 2533b, are not ``materials critical to national 
security'' for which only a U.S. source should be used; and there is no 
national security reason for the Department to take action to ensure a 
long term domestic supply of these specialty metals.\2\ The 
``criticality'' of a material is a function of its importance in DoD 
applications, the extent to which DoD actions are required to shape and 
sustain the market, and the impact and likelihood of supply disruption. 
The analysis showed that specialty metals are ``strategic materials'' 
which may require special monitoring and attention/action; but not, in 
general, a domestic source restriction.\3\ Should reliable supplies/
capacities be insufficient to meet potential requirements for a 
projected conflict, other risk mitigation options, including 
stockpiling, could represent an effective alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Congress has placed no domestic source restrictions on the 
ores and other basic materials that are the precursors to specialty 
metals. However, for truly critical materials, reliable sources of 
supply for such ores and other basic materials also may be 
necessary.
    \3\ Notwithstanding this finding, the Department is complying, 
and will comply, with all statutory domestic source requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    High purity beryllium, however, is a critical material. Even in 
peacetime, defense applications dominate the market; it is essential 
for important defense systems and unique in the function it performs. 
In addition, domestic production capabilities have atrophied, and there 
are no reliable foreign suppliers. Accordingly, the Department should 
continue to take those special actions necessary to maintain a long 
term domestic supply of high purity beryllium. In fact, the Department 
has established a project

[[Page 8062]]

under Title III of the Defense Production Act with U.S. supplier Brush-
Wellman to build and operate a new high purity beryllium production 
facility.
    The Strategic Materials Protection Board (SMPB) should review and 
validate any internal or external recommendations that identify 
strategic materials that are essential for a wide variety of important 
defense applications and for which there is a relatively high potential 
for supply disruption. For example, a relatively high potential for 
supply disruption would be represented by a situation in which reliable 
supplies (U.S. or non-U.S.) are projected to be insufficient to support 
the defense needs of the United States during peacetime and/or during a 
conflict. In such circumstances, DoD market intervention such as 
increasing or establishing reliable production capability and/or 
stockpiling may be an effective risk mitigation strategy.

Analysis

    Specialty metals are not ``critical materials.'' There is no 
national security reason for the Department to take action to ensure a 
long term domestic supply of specialty metals.
    The Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA) produced a 
report in December 2005 entitled ``Specialty Metals and the National 
Defense.'' \4\ In it, the SSINA asserted that ``specialty metals are 
vitally important to virtually every U.S. military platform'' and 
provided a listing of the many DoD weapons systems that contain 
specialty metals. While many important DoD systems do incorporate 
specialty metals, incorporation into a DoD system does not, by itself, 
make a material ``critical to national security.'' If incorporation 
alone was sufficient, every type of material from plastic, to rubber 
and glass, would be a critical material. More discriminating criteria 
are needed to distinguish critical materials from the larger set of 
strategic materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ SSINA is a Washington, DC-based trade association 
representing virtually all continental specialty metals producers. 
The December 2005 report is available at http://www.ssina.com/news/releases/pdf_releases/12_06_05_Defense_Paper.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The designation of a strategic material should be predicated on it 
meeting a ``technical'' criterion: The material should be essential for 
important defense systems and unique in the function it performs--there 
are no viable material alternatives available.
    Critical materials are a subset of strategic materials. The 
Department of Defense should designate a material as ``critical to 
national security'' only if it meets the ``technical'' criterion of a 
``strategic'' material; and also meets two additional criteria:
     ``Business'' criterion: The Department of Defense 
dominates the market for the material, and its active and full 
involvement and support is necessary to sustain and shape the strategic 
direction of the market; and
     ``Security of Supply'' criterion: There is significant and 
unacceptable risk of supply disruption due to vulnerable U.S. or 
qualified non-U.S. suppliers.
    The Department agrees that strategic materials, including specialty 
metals, are essential for important defense systems, and in many cases 
are unique in the functions they perform. Therefore specialty metals 
are considered strategic materials. However, specialty metals do not 
meet the other criteria necessary to be considered critical materials.
    The Department of Defense does not dominate the market for 
specialty metals; its active and full involvement and support is not 
necessary to sustain and shape the strategic direction of the market; 
and the risk of supply disruption is not significant. According to the 
SSINA, ``defense applications account for less than 10% of revenues in 
specialty metals companies.'' \5\ Recent Defense Contract Management 
Agency analysis of certain metals found that DoD consumes less than 1 
percent of total U.S. steel production; about 6 percent of U.S. 
aluminum production; and between 8 and 10 percent of domestic titanium 
production. In 2007, U.S. and non-U.S. military end-use applications, 
including military aerospace, represented about 5 percent of worldwide 
titanium consumption. The health of the domestic specialty metals 
industry is, and will continue to be, determined by its ability to sell 
core commercial products to commercial customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ SSINA press release, June 23, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whether or not DoD applications are dominant in the specialty 
metals market, the Department has the ability, when necessary, to 
require that its orders be filled in advance of non-DoD orders. Under 
the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS; 15 CFR 700), U.S. 
suppliers must give DoD orders delivery preference over non-DoD 
(commercial) orders in the event of a supply constraint or delivery 
conflict. DPAS authorities, coupled with the size of the domestic 
specialty metals production capacity relative to limited DoD 
consumption, ensures the Department is able to purchase the quantity of 
specialty metals it needs from U.S. industry.
    For a material to be elevated to ``critical material'' status there 
must also be a significant risk of supply disruption. For specialty 
metals, in addition to strong U.S. suppliers, there are reliable 
foreign suppliers. Specialty steels and metal alloys are produced 
globally; leading producers include Japan, South Korea, Germany, India, 
Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Australia, and the UK. Titanium and titanium 
alloys are produced in Japan, Italy, Germany, France, and the UK. 
Zirconium and zirconium alloys are produced in Canada, Germany, France, 
and Japan. Although many metals are commodities and traded throughout 
the global market, there are cases in which the price of a metal varies 
by region. Table 1 summarizes the sources and prices for a select set 
of metals. It highlights the extent to which such metals are imported 
into the United States, the largest producers world-wide and the 
largest importers into the Unite States, and differences in metal 
prices in domestic and foreign markets. (Note that there is no 
statutory domestic source restriction for titanium sponge.)

                                  Table 1--Sources and Prices for Select Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Domestic     Foreign
                                     Import       Largest world        Largest U.S.        source       source
            Material                reliance     producers (% of     import sources (%   price ($/    price ($/
                                      (%)       world production)    of U.S.  imports)  metric ton)  metric ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum........................           26  China 32...........  Canada 55.........       $1,942       $1,852
                                  ...........  Russia 11..........  Russia 17.........
                                  ...........  Canada 8...........  Brazil 4..........
Raw Steel.......................           12  China 37...........  Canada 17.........          756          710
                                  ...........  Japan 9............  E.U. 16...........

[[Page 8063]]

 
                                  ...........  U.S. 7.............  Mexico 11.........
Cobalt..........................           78  Congo 36...........  Norway 21.........       43,266       44,899
                                  ...........  Canada 13..........  Russia 19.........
                                  ...........  Zambia 11..........  Canada 10.........
Copper..........................           37  Chile 37...........  Chile 39..........        3,715        3,716
                                  ...........  Peru 8.............  Canada 32.........
                                  ...........  U.S. 8.............  Peru 15...........
Nickel (metal)..................           21  Russia 19..........  Canada 41.........       11,248       10,698
                                  ...........  Canada 15..........  Russia 16.........
                                  ...........  Australia 11.......  Norway 11.........
Titanium (sponge)...............           64  Japan 28...........  Kazakhstan 51.....       18,060        7,800
                                  ...........  Russia 23..........  Japan 37..........
                                  ...........  China 23...........  Russia 7..........
Zinc (refined)..................           58  China 27...........  Canada 64.........        1,231        1,152
                                  ...........  Peru 14............  Mexico 17.........
                                  ...........  Australia 13.......  Kazakhstan 9......
High Purity Beryllium...........        (\1\)  U.S. 77............  Kazakhstan 42.....      357,000        (\2\)
                                  ...........  China 15...........  Germany 24........
                                  ...........  Mozambique 5.......  U.K. 6............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: USGS 2008 Mineral Commodities Summaries, American Metal Market, COMEX, CRU Monitor, London Metal
  Exchange, Metal Bulletin, New York Dealer, New York Mercantile Exchange, Platts, Purchasing Magazine.
\1\ Net exporter.
\2\ Not available.

    In accordance with DoD Handbook 5000.60-H, ``Assessing Defense 
Industrial Capabilities,'' reliable foreign suppliers are usually 
acceptable, and in fact are encouraged to allow the Department to 
obtain a wider competitive cost and technology base. Foreign dependence 
does not necessarily mean foreign vulnerability. Therefore, the 
Department uses foreign sources where advantageous and within the 
limitations of the law. However, in some circumstances foreign 
suppliers are not acceptable:
     Foreign sources may pose an unacceptable risk when there 
is a high ``market concentration'' combined with political or 
geopolitical vulnerability. A sole source supplier existing only in one 
physical location and vulnerable to serious political instability may 
not be available when needed.
     Suppliers from politically unfriendly or anti-American 
foreign countries, as defined by statute or U.S. Government policy, are 
not used to meet U.S. defense needs.
     A U.S. source may be needed for technologies and products 
that are either classified, offer unique warfighting superiority, or 
could be used by foreign nations to develop countermeasures.
     Suppliers that cannot or will not provide products for 
military applications for political reasons are not feasible sources.
     The Department of Defense is required by law to purchase a 
particular product from U.S. sources only.
    In some instances, the Department must pay a premium in order to 
maintain a domestic production capability. For ``critical'' materials 
and comparable ``critical'' military-unique systems, subsystems, and 
components, the Department is willing to pay that premium to mitigate 
risk and ensure national defense/security. However, in addition to a 
price premium, in such cases the Department also may assume risk 
associated with insufficient production capacity to meet rapidly 
increased contingency or operational requirements. ``Captive'' DoD 
markets frequently size themselves to meet steady-state ``peacetime'' 
DoD demand and may not be able to surge production as rapidly as 
desired.
    For example, the Department recently experienced a significant 
shortfall in thin gauge MIL-A grade steel armor production capacity 
necessary to support rapid production of the Mine Resistant Ambush 
Protected (MRAP) vehicle and other operationally-important ground 
vehicles requiring protective armor. The availability of steel, 
generally, was not a production constraint; but the availability of the 
specialized thin gauge, quenched and tempered steel (a ``specialty 
metal'') needed for DoD armor applications was a constraint. The 
Department was required to waive various statutory domestic source 
restrictions to meet operational requirements. The primary 
``beneficiary'' of the waivers was U.S.-located Evraz-Oregon Steel. 
Although Oregon Steel quenches and tempers its steel in the United 
States, it does not have a blast furnace and buys its ingot from Mittal 
in Mexico. The addition of Oregon Steel increased relevant domestic 
production capacity by about 40 percent.

Conclusions

    In summary, the fact that specialty metals are essential for 
important defense systems does not mean that specialty metals are 
critical materials, nor that national security requires that only U.S.-
produced specialty metals be used for DoD applications.

Beryllium

    High purity beryllium is both a strategic and a critical material.
    High purity beryllium is essential for important defense systems, 
and it is unique in the function it performs. High purity beryllium 
possesses unique properties that make it indispensable in many of 
today's critical U.S. defense systems, including sensors, missiles and 
satellites, avionics, and nuclear weapons.
    The Department of Defense dominates the market for high purity 
beryllium and its active and full involvement is necessary to sustain 
and shape the strategic direction of the market.
    There is a significant risk of supply disruption. Without DoD 
involvement and support, U.S. industry would not be able to provide the 
material for defense applications. There are no reliable foreign 
suppliers that could provide

[[Page 8064]]

high purity beryllium to the Department.
    Recognizing that high purity beryllium meets all the conditions for 
being a critical material, the Department should take, and has taken, 
special action to maintain a domestic supply. The Department has used 
the authorities of Title III of the Defense Production Act to contract 
with U.S. firm Brush-Wellman, Inc. to build and operate a new high 
purity beryllium production plant. The new facility will produce pure 
beryllium capable of meeting the specifications required for myriad 
national security applications.

    Dated: February 6, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-3708 Filed 2-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P