U.S. STRATEGIC MATERIAL SUPPLY CHAIN ASSESSMENT:

SELECT RARE EARTH ELEMENTS

DYSPROSIUM, ERBIUM, NEODYMIUM, TERBIUM, AND YTTERBIUM

2016

PREPARED BY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT, CONTACT:

Jason Bolton, Senior Trade and Industry Analyst, (202) 482-5936

David Boylan-Kolchin, Trade and Industry Analyst, (202) 482-7816

Elizabeth Oakes, Trade and Industry Analyst, (202) 482-4615

Intern Support: Angelo Curto, Hannah Dennis, Ashira Naftali Greer, Yolanda Ngo

Brad Botwin 

Director, Industrial Studies

Brad.Botwin@bis.doc.gov

Phone: (202) 482-4060

Fax: (202) 482-5361

For more information about the Office of Technology Evaluation, please visit:

http://www.bis.doc.gov/dib
Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION AND SELECT FINDINGS................................................................................... 3

II. INDUSTRY PROFILE.............................................................................................................. 11

III. SALES AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE .............................................................................. 20

IV. PRODUCTS AND INPUTS...................................................................................................... 29

V. ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGES, COMPETITIVENESS, AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ......... 46

VI. INNOVATION: SUBSTITUTION, RECYCLING, AND R&D ...................................................... 61

VII. SUPPORT FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ................................................................... 74

VIII: TRADE............................................................................................................................. 82

IX. EMPLOYMENT .................................................................................................................... 97

X. FINDINGS........................................................................................................................... 106

APPENDIX 1. BUSINESS LINE DEFINITIONS ..................................................................... 114

APPENDIX 2. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ............................................................................... 116

APPENDIX 3. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PUBLICATIONS LIST ..................... 150

2
I. INTRODUCTION AND SELECT FINDINGS

Rare Earth Elements (REEs), also called rare earth metals and rare earth oxides, are a group of 

seventeen chemical elements moderately abundant in the earth’s crust, with unique properties 

essential to high-technology products. REEs are used in metallurgy, polishing, and the creation 

of catalysts and magnets, with a range of applications including automobile and petroleum 

refining, phosphors for flat panel displays in mobile phones and laptops, permanent magnetics, 

and rechargeable batteries.

1

 REEs are also vital in defense applications such as fighter jet 

engines, missile guidance systems, lasers, and satellite communications systems.

The United States was once self-reliant in its domestic mining industry for REEs, but has 

become nearly fully reliant on REE imports in the past 20 years. This import reliance has come 

about due to increasing foreign competition, primarily from China, which has lower mining and 

processing costs and significantly larger REE reserves, as well as from increased domestic and 

foreign usage of REEs. This report focuses on the U.S. manufacturers and distributors that 

require REEs for their products. While domestic production of REEs shrank in the last half 

century, the growth of the global technology industry has spurred a continually increasing 

demand for REEs in commercial and defense markets.

The Chinese near-monopoly on REEs has raised the issue of supply vulnerability in recent years. 

Temporary Chinese export restrictions of certain REEs have caused extreme price volatility and 

global end-user outcry. China has since dropped these restrictions, but their unilateral action has 

1 Find more information on rare earth elements at https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/

3
raised concerns with numerous U.S. Government institutions including Congress and the U.S.

Department of Defense. 

In 2014, the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) partnered with the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to conduct an industrial 

base assessment measuring the health and competitiveness of the domestic REE supply chain 

network, focusing on manufacturers and distributors of products containing REE components 

used in defense and aerospace applications. The following report focuses on five specific REEs:

Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium, collectively referred to as 

“DENTY”.

DLA also requested similar assessments focusing on the carbon fiber composites, magnesium,

and titanium industries. These materials are covered in separate BIS reports.2

BIS and DLA set the following objectives for the industrial base survey and assessment:

 Capture the various levels of the REE supply chain network.

 Identify interdependencies between respondents, their suppliers and customers, and the 

U.S. Government agencies they support, with particular focus on supply chain 

availability issues and challenges.

 Benchmark trends in business practices, competitiveness issues, financial performance, 

research and development (R&D) and capital investment, workforce, and other topic 

areas across the supply chain network.

2 View these and other industrial base reports on the BIS webpage: www.bis.doc.gov/dib. 

4
 Share data with U.S. Government (USG) stakeholders, as appropriate, to better inform 

strategic planning, policy implementation, targeted outreach, and collaborative problem 

solving.

BIS performed this data collection and assessment under authority delegated to the U.S. 

Department of Commerce under Section 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as 

amended, and Executive Order 13603. These authorities enable BIS to conduct surveys, study 

industries and technologies supporting the national defense, and monitor economic and trade 

issues affecting the U.S. industrial base.

Other industrial base assessments recently completed by BIS include: the U.S. Underwater 

Acoustics Transducer Industry, the U.S. Space Industry “Deep Dive,” the Cartridge and 

Propellant Actuated Device Industry, and the Consumers of Electro-Optical Satellite Imagery.3

BIS worked with DLA and select DENTY suppliers and product manufacturers to gain a better 

understanding of operational and business practices specific to the REE industry. These 

interactions aided in designing a survey instrument that covered issues faced by both industry 

and government stakeholders.

The content of the survey instrument addresses several categories of respondent information, 

including sections dedicated to:

 Organizational information

 Products (DENTY-related)

 Suppliers, inventories, inputs, and sourcing

3 See www.bis.doc.gov/dib. 

5
 U.S. Government defense and non-defense participation

 Operations and Challenges

 Imports and Exports of REE-Related Material

 Sales

 Customers

 Financials

 Workforce

 Research and Development

 Capital Expenditures

BIS distributed the REE survey in late spring 2014 to respondents identified by DLA (our 

partner agency), previous BIS survey efforts, and independent research. A total of 160

organizations responded to the survey. The response data was reviewed, tabulated, analyzed, 

and presented to DLA to facilitate their analysis and strategic planning. Additionally, aggregated 

results, as contained in this report, were made publicly available and presented to strategic 

materials stakeholders across the U.S. Government, industry, and academia.

Select Findings

 Most respondents were focused on Manufacturing, Distribution, End-Use/Application, 

and R&D; these four business lines accounted for 82 percent of the primary business 

lines selected by respondents.

 The 160 respondents reported operating 396 facilities: 288 in 38 states and 108 in 33 nonU.S locations between 2010 and 2013. Respondents had the greatest number of facilities 

6
in California, New Jersey, and New York. For the 108 facilities outside of the United 

States, most were in China, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada.

 Aggregated sales of all respondents were $76.4 billion in 2013. REE-related products 

accounted for only 8 percent of this amount - $6.1 billion – up from 5.8 percent in 2010. 

REE sales growth in the commercial area far outpaced that in the governmental area.

 For the 2010-2013 period, three respondents were calculated to be at high/severe 

financial risk, with another 36 at moderate/elevated financial risk. 

 The 160 respondents identified a total of 601 products or product types. Over two-thirds 

of the listed products were related to the DENTY elements; the majority of these products 

were magnets and magnet powder products.

 Nearly half of the products or services used Neodymium, which was used at over twice 

the rate of each of the other elements of focus (Dysprosium, Ytterbium, Erbium, and 

Terbium). Most products/services involved the use of more than one REE.

 Respondents listed 24 inputs with sole source suppliers and 128 inputs with single source 

suppliers.

4

 Chemicals and Magnets had the greatest number of sole source and single 

source inputs. On a percentage basis, over three-quarters of alloy and ceramic inputs 

were sole or single source. 

 REEs originating in China represented approximately two-thirds of inputs, with those 

from the United States accounting for another 22 percent. All remaining countries 

4 Single Source – An organization that is designated as the only accepted source for the supply of parts, components, 

materials, or services, even though other sources with equivalent technical know-how and production capability may 

exist.

Sole Source – An organization that is the only source for the supply of parts, components, materials, or services. No 

alternative U.S. or non-U.S. based suppliers exists other than the current supplier. 

7
accounted for just under 10 percent of known origin REEs, with no single country 

accounting for more than eight inputs. 

 Supply chain disruptions were only a minor issue for respondents in 2012 and 2013. 

Seven respondents reported 16 total supply chain disruptions. Eleven of these disruptions 

were for suppliers located in China, where China was the original source of the REEs as 

well. The reasons given for disruptions were varied, including legal holdups, quality

issues, and significant price increases.

 Eighty-one of 160 respondents ranked ‘Foreign Competition’ as an organizational 

challenge, with 30 noting it as their number one challenge. This was more than twice the 

number of the next most frequent primary challenge, ‘Material Price Volatility’.

 ‘Aging Equipment, Facilities, or Infrastructure’ was not a highly cited challenge overall, 

but was the most frequently identified challenge expected to rise in the future.

 Respondents did not expect any major changes in the availability of any REEs in the near 

future. For every REE, the vast majority of respondents expected no change in its 

availability.

 Recycled products and inputs were twice as common as substituted products and inputs. 

Twenty-three percent of respondents recycled REEs or REE-related products, whereas 

six percent of respondents substituted REEs with other REEs or non-REEs.

 Product Performance was the most frequently cited constraint in using recycled REEs or 

substituting for REEs.

 Sixty-one respondents reported having REE-related R&D expenditures, totaling $254 

million in 2013 – four percent of total R&D expenditures for all respondents.

8
 One hundred two of the respondents provided support to at least one USG agency, with 

USG sales accounting for nearly one-third of all sales in 2013. The Armed Services, 

NASA, and the Department of Energy were the most frequently supported agencies.

 Forty-seven respondents were seemingly dependent on the USG, based on their 

indication as such and/or their percent of sales to the USG. 

 Sixty-six respondents indicated they imported REE-related ore, mixed compound, 

inorganic purified compound, organic purified compound, mixed metal, and/or purified 

metal between 2010 and 2013. Forty-six respondents imported from a single country, 

with China accounting for 28 (61 percent) of these single country importers.

 Respondents reported a total of $1.1 billion worth of imports of REE-related ore, 

compounds, and metals from 2010 to 2013. The top three importers accounted for nearly 

$688 million of these imports (63 percent), and the top five accounted for 80 percent of 

imports.

 Thirty-six respondents (23 percent) reported exports of REE-related ore, compound, or 

metal to 56 countries between 2010 and 2013. Another 36 respondents listed non-U.S. 

customers of their products or services.

 In 2013, the 160 respondents employed 203,896 total full-time-equivalent employlees 

(FTEs), 5.6 percent of whom performed REE-related duties. 

 Smaller companies tended to have a larger percentage of their workforce devoted to 

REE-related items. Small and medium sized businesses had 26 and 28 percent of their 

employees, respectively, working on REE-related items, compared to 17 percent for large 

businesses and three percent for very large businesses.

9
10
II. INDUSTRY PROFILE

BIS received surveys from 160 respondents of all sizes, from many locations within the United 

States, who work with Rare Earth Elements (REEs) in some capacity along the value chain. In 

order to capture some initial information about the respondents and create organization profiles 

for further analysis, BIS asked a series of questions about organization size and type. The profile 

questions also asked that respondents detail their lines of business, REE applications, and the 

market segments in which they participated. Finally, BIS asked respondents to list their 

organization’s facility locations and any anticipated changes for those facilities. 

All 160 of the total respondents worked directly with REEs. One hundred and forty respondents 

(88 percent) worked directly with the focus elements: Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, 

Terbium, or Ytterbium (DENTY). 

Respondent organizations fell into one of three types of organization: Commercial Company, 

U.S. Government Organization, or University. One hundred and fifty respondents (94 percent) 

were Commercial Companies; five respondents (three percent) were Universities; and five 

respondents (three percent) were U.S. Government Organizations. Commercial companies were 

then further divided into publicly traded or privately held companies. Ninety-six of the 150 

commercial companies (not including the ‘Not Applicable’ category) (60 percent) were privately 

held organizations. Forty-six organizations (29 percent) responded at the business-unit or 

division-level, providing more REE focus to their responses (see Figure II-1).

11
Sixty-six respondents (41 percent) self-identified as a small business, while 115 respondents (72 

percent) reported having fewer than 500 employees in 2013. For the purposes of this

assessment, respondents were classified as small, medium, large, or very large companies based 

on their average net sales from 2010 to 2013 (rather than their employee size).

Using average net sales to categorize the respondents by size, small businesses were defined as 

respondents with average annual sales under $25 million. Using this method, 74 respondents (46 

percent) were categorized as small. These small businesses employed roughly one percent of the 

nearly 230,000 reported full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. Very large organizations 

accounted for six percent of the survey responses, but employed 67 percent of the total reported 

employees on average between 2010 and 2013 (see Figure II-2).

12
Respondents provided their role in the REE supply chain by reporting their primary and 

additional lines of business from a list BIS provided (see Appendix 1). Results indicated that 

U.S. companies working with REEs are generally involved in the later processing stages, rather 

than earlier procurement stages (see Figure II-3). REE mining activities—such as ‘Financing’, 

‘Exploration’, and ‘Extraction’—were selected as primary business lines for only nine

respondents (6 percent). Seventeen respondents (11 percent) reported one of the following as 

their primary line of business: ‘Processing’, ‘Metallurgy’, or ‘Refining’.

Respondents identified four business lines significantly more frequently than others: ‘EndUse/Application’, ‘Manufacturing’, ‘Research & Development (R&D)’, and ‘Distribution’. 

‘Manufacturing’, with 75 respondents (47 percent), was the most commonly selected primary 

business line, followed by ‘Distribution’. ‘End-Use/Application’ was only the fourth most 

commonly reported primary business line, but was the most commonly reported category overall

13
when including additional business lines with 103 respondents (64 percent). ‘R&D’ was 

reported as a business line by 61 respondents (38 percent), although 111 respondents (69 

percent) reported having R&D expenditures. 

Within these business lines, respondents utilized a variety of REEs (see Figure II-4). The most 

commonly used element, ‘Neodymium’, with 115 respondents reporting usage, was a focus 

element of this survey. The second and third most widely used elements were ‘Yttrium’ and 

‘Cerium’, with 92 and 78 respondents, respectively. Usage of the other assessment target 

elements (‘Dysprosium’, ‘Erbium’, ‘Terbium’, and ‘Ytterbium’) was reported by between 60 and 

66 respondents each. 

14
On average, respondents worked with 6.3 different REEs, though half reported working with 

four or fewer. Seven respondents worked with all 17 elements, and another 13 worked with all 

but one – ‘Promethium’. For the 24 respondents working with just one REE, 10 used 

‘Neodymium’. 

Respondents were asked if they supported any of the 21 listed REE application areas listed (see 

Figure II-5), and identified a total of 639 applications within these categories. ‘Magnets and 

Magnet Powders’ was the application most selected, with 62 responses. Other frequently 

selected REE application categories included ‘Coatings’, ‘Ceramics’, ‘Alloys’, ‘Gain/Laser 

Medium’, ‘Crystals’, and ‘Fiber Optics’. Forty-nine ‘Other’ application areas were identified by 

respondents, including motors, R&D, sensors, slurry, memory devices, hearing aids, and pipeline 

inspection.

15
Respondents provided products and services in a variety of non-defense and defense market 

segments. Drawing from a list of non-defense market segments provided by BIS, respondents 

most often indicated participating in ‘Research and Development’, ‘Aerospace’, ‘Optics’ and 

‘Sensors’ (see Figures II-6 and II-7). Many respondents also provided products to market 

segments as diverse as ‘Healthcare/Medical’, ‘Consumer Goods’, and ‘Marine Transportation’.

16
17
One hundred twelve respondents (70 percent) indicated that they participated in defense-related 

market segments (see Figure II-8). Within the defense sector, ‘R&D’ was the most commonly 

reported market segment, with 71 respondents (44 percent) participating. ‘Aircraft’ and ‘C4ISR’

(Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance) were the defense-related sectors with the second and third most common 

participation by respondents.

The 160 respondents reported operating 396 facilities in 38 states (288 facilities) and 33 non-U.S 

locations (108 facilities) between 2010 and 2013. Respondents listed 45 facilities in California, 

26 facilities in New Jersey, and 21 in New York. For the 108 facilities that were owned but not 

operated in the United States, the majority were located in China (20), Germany (15) the U.K. 

(10), France (6), and Canada (6). 

18
BIS asked respondents to identify all REE-utilizing facilities in which they anticipated 

significant changes in operations from 2014 to 2018 and to explain these changes. Twenty-five 

organizations expected changes to 37 facilities, with many changes involving expansion of their 

current operations. Twenty-two respondents planned to prepare for increased business. The top 

locations for anticipated expansion were California, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New York, 

Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Six expected to close or relocate; one of these specifically cited 

Chinese market control as a reason explaining, “[We] have mothballed our recycling of REE due 

to Chinese pricing in the market place of both phosphors and rare earths. Recycling of waste 

phosphors is not justified financially at this point in time, due to market conditions.”

19
III. SALES AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Sales and other financial data were a key factor in understanding the respondents’ strengths and 

vulnerabilities in the global REE marketplace. BIS asked respondents to provide sales and 

financial information for 2010 to 2013, with a special focus on REE-related sales. Sales data 

included transactions made to commercial and U.S. Government customers.

BIS developed a financial risk metric for the respondents, based on financial data and qualitative 

methods. This financial risk overview allowed BIS to batch respondents based on financial 

performance, providing additional insight into potential repercussions of financial impacts across 

the REE supply chain. 

Sales

Respondents’ total sales rose from $73.1 billion in 2010 to $76.4 billion in 2013 with a peak of 

$80.2 billion in 2011. The vast majority of these sales came from non-REE-related products.

Government and commercial REE-related products accounted for only 8.0 percent of total sales 

in 2013, or $6.1 billion (see Figure III-1). The share of REE-related products made up an 

increasing percentage of total sales, rising from 5.8 percent in 2010 to 8.0 percent in 2013.

20
Respondents were asked to break out both REE-related commercial sales and REE-related U.S. 

Government sales from their total sales. Data showed that sales growth of REE-related products 

outpaced those of non-REE products, both for government sales and commercial sales (see 

Figure III-2). Commercial REE-related sales grew 48 percent from 2010-2013, while U.S. 

Government REE-related sales grew about 30 percent. Sales of non-REE products to the U.S. 

Government was the weakest category, falling consistently from 2010 to 2013 (11 percent). 

21
There was significant variability in sales performance between individual respondents. Fortyseven respondents reported that their sales decreased from 2010 to 2013, 30 of which 

experienced a significant decrease in sales (a drop of more than 25 percent). Respondents with 

declining sales over the period were of all sizes, but nearly half were smaller organizations; 44.7

percent were categorized by BIS as small companies (less than $25 million in average annual 

sales).

Just over one-third of the 61 respondents with REE-related U.S. Government sales reported 

decreased government sales from 2010-2013, with 18 of these respondents experiencing 

significant declines. Commercial REE-related sales had the strongest growth of all the 

categories, with nearly 71 percent of respondents reporting increases in this type of sale and 

22
nearly half (48 percent) reporting significant sales growth (over 25 percent) from 2010 to 2013

(see Figure III-3). 

Financial Risk

Respondents provided data on select financial accounting items, including net and operating 

income, assets, liabilities, and inventories. BIS used this financial data and developed a 

customized financial risk metric to better capture the overall financial condition of respondents. 

The model was based largely on standardized financial ratios covering profitability, liquidity, 

leverage, and default probability of the organizations over time. Additional select qualitative 

data were taken into account during the financial risk evaluation. 

Respondents were assigned both yearly financial risk scores as well as a more comprehensive 

2010-2013 financial risk score, which incorporated yearly scores and trends in financial health. 

23
Based on this scorecard, respondents were categorized as low/neutral risk, moderate/elevated 

risk, or high/severe risk. Some respondents did not have data for all years or all measures and as 

a result could not be assigned a financial risk score. These respondents are included in the 

low/neutral risk category.

For the four year period, BIS categorized three respondents as being at high/severe financial risk, 

with an additional 36 at moderate/elevated financial risk. The yearly financial evaluation of 

respondents deteriorated moderately across the period, with the number of respondents

categorized as low/neutral risk on an annual basis falling from 136 to 121 companies (85 percent 

to 76 percent of respondents) during the 2010-2013 period (see Figure III-4A). Moderate/

elevated risk companies grew from 22 to 35 companies (14 to 22 percent of respondents) during 

the same timeframe. Fifteen respondents were labeled as moderate/elevated risk throughout the 

entire 2010-2013 period. Half of these respondents had negative profits in 2013, and 11 had 

negative cumulative earnings for the four-year period. 

While organizations of all sizes were found in the low/neutral financial risk category, small 

businesses were proportionally more represented in the moderate/elevated risk and high/severe 

risk categories. For example, the three companies categorized as high/severe risk for the period 

as a whole were all small businesses. Twenty-one of the 36 total companies (58 percent) 

labelled as moderate/elevated risk were small businesses (see Figure III-4B) 

24
Respondents operating with a net loss were more likely to be identified by BIS as having 

high/severe financial risk. All of the respondents in the high/severe risk category operated at a 

net loss across each year of the 2010-2013 period. The percentage of respondents in the 

moderate/elevated risk category operating at a net loss grew from 36 percent to 56 percent over 

the period. Between 12 and 14 percent of respondents in the low/neutral risk category were 

operating at net loss (see Figure III-5).

25
In addition to falling profits, respondents at moderate/elevated or high/severe financial risk 

generally had a higher and increasing debt burden (see Figure III-6). The average debt ratio of 

respondents in the high/severe financial risk category more than tripled from 271 percent in 2010 

to 868 percent in 2013. The average debt ratio of respondents in the moderate/elevated financial 

risk category grew from 124 percent to 146 percent, and the average debt ratio of respondents in 

the low/neutral risk category decreased from 44 to 39 percent.5

5 Debt ratio is configured based on the total debt to total assets percentage. Respondents were placed in a financial 

risk category of either high/severe risk, moderate/elevated risk, or low/neutral risk based on the level of operational 

net loss. 

26
Elevated financial risk had several potential adverse effects on how businesses operated with 

regard to capital expenditures, R&D, and workforce. Respondents with elevated financial risk 

were more likely to have decreased capital expenditures and R&D expenditures from 2010 to 

2013 and a reduced workforce over that period (see Figure III-7).

27
28
IV. PRODUCTS AND INPUTS

In order to better understand the production capabilities of the respondents, BIS asked a series of 

questions about product and service lines between 2010 and 2013, with an emphasis on DENTYrelated lines. Respondents were asked to detail material types, applications, product type, and 

market segment in which these products and services participated.

In addition to products and services, BIS sought to understand the inputs and suppliers which 

were utilized during production. Again, an emphasis was placed on inputs – the materials, 

products, and services respondents used to create their own products and services – related to 

DENTY lines of business. BIS asked respondents to detail input material types and supplier 

locations with single and sole source suppliers as a focus topic.

Products and Services

BIS asked respondents to list and describe their organization's products and services related to 

Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium (DENTY), as well as other REEs. 

These included finished items sold to external customers and semi-finished items produced 

internally for sale and/or related production purposes. The 160 respondents identified a total of 

601 products or product types (see Figure IV-1)6. Ninety-one percent (544) of the total DENTY 

products and services listed were products. Neodymium and ‘Other REE’ were the elements 

most cited, with 322 and 361 products and services, respectively. 

6 Respondents were able to group together products with the same input components and similar end uses as the 

same basic product type

29
Respondents were asked to describe the type of product or service that their organization 

provided. The most common DENTY-related products were Inorganic Purified Compounds, 

with 121 products listed by a total of 19 respondents (see Figure IV-2). Eighteen respondents

provided Mixed Compound – Oxides, but they listed fewer than half as many products/services

within that category. The vast majority of respondents provided just one material type.

30
Half of all listed products/services involved the use of more than one REE. Neodymium and 

Dysprosium were the DENTY elements most commonly present in multi-REE products. For 

example, of the 146 products produced containing Dysprosium, 124 (85 percent) also contained 

Neodymium. Of the 144 products produced containing Ytterbium, 97 (67 percent) also 

contained Erbium (see Figure IV-3). 

31
BIS asked respondents if they believed their organization was a sole source for the REE-related 

products and services that they listed (U.S. or global). Thirty-eight respondents identified 120 of 

their products/services as sole source. These sole source products represented each of the 

DENTY elements, and often multiple of the DENTY elements within a single product (see 

Figure IV-4). For example, respondents indicated that they were the sole global source for 43 

products/services containing Neodymium and the sole U.S. source for 32 products/services 

containing Neodymium. The highest number of both global and U.S. sole source 

products/services, however, were products containing at least one of the 12 non-DENTY REEs.

32
Respondents also indicated the primary end-use application for each of their products/services 

(see Figure IV-5). ‘Magnets and Magnet Powders’ were the most common material application, 

with 115 products/services listed by respondents (see Figure IV-6). ‘All Other’ material 

applications constituted the second largest category, with 90 products identified by respondents. 

Responses for each material application were also divided by the organization type supported. 

A majority of respondents supported Commercial markets across all material applications. 

Products and services for Defense usage were focused primarily on ‘Magnets and Magnet 

Powders’, ‘Separated RE Oxides’, and ‘Gain/Laser Medium’ applications. Among 

products/services primarily used by Universities, ‘Magnet/Magnet Powders’ and ‘Nuclear’

applications were most frequently identified.

33
34
Over two-thirds of the products/services identified by respondents were related to the DENTY 

elements; a large portion of these products were used for ‘Magnets and Magnet Powder’

applications (see Figure IV-7). Neodymium was found in twice as many product applications as 

the next most common REE, Dysprosium. Although the DENTY elements have been grouped 

together as part of this assessment, they have different characteristics and end-uses. Dysprosium 

and Neodymium were overwhelmingly used in magnet-related applications, while Erbium and 

Ytterbium were more focused in laser gain materials and dopants. 

Respondents were asked to identify the primary market segment in which their products or 

services were used (see Figure IV-8). ‘Research and Development (R&D)’ had the largest 

market sector participation, with 105 products/services identified by respondents, and also the 

greatest number expected to be used in the academic community. While the ‘Aerospace’ sector 

was third most frequently identified, it contained nearly half of the products/services with 

35
primarily defense end-uses. The ‘Optics/Sensors’ sector also contained a high number of 

products/services with defense end-uses.

As with the end-use applications of the DENTY products/services, there were notable 

differences in the end-use market segment across the elements. The R&D market segment 

contained the most DENTY specific products and services (see Figure IV-9). Neodymium-based 

products and services, in addition to being the most prevalent overall, also exhibited the widest 

array of market segment uses. Erbium and Ytterbium containing products tended to be more 

heavily destined for the laser market, as well as aerospace and optics/sensors, with little usage in 

many of the other market segments. 

36
Inputs and Suppliers

In order to understand more about the inputs used by respondents to create their products, 

especially with regards to their REE-related business lines, BIS asked respondents to provide 

details of their inputs and suppliers. Respondents identified 618 inputs from as many as 376 

unique suppliers for business lines related to DENTY.

7

 Respondents specified 21 different input

types, including different types of mixed compounds, mixed metals, and purified compounds in 

addition a small number of raw ore inputs and inputs of unknown material type. One hundred 

and fifty-nine inputs were mixed or purified metals, and 277 inputs were listed as compounds

(see Figure IV-10 for the most frequently identified material types).

7 BIS consolidated the names of suppliers provided by respondents to individual organization names when possible, 

but some duplicate entries may remain, due to abbreviations, misspellings, and ambiguous supplier names. 

37
Inputs were grouped into categories of 21 input types—the same types used in listings of their 

own products/services. As with products/services, magnets and chemicals were the most 

prevalent types, but more basic materials like Refined Rare Earth and Material were much more 

commonly identified as input types than as respondents’ product types. This is because 

manufacturers used these inputs to formulate more finished products (see Figure IV-11).

38
For each of their suppliers, respondents indicated if the supplier was a single source or a sole 

source. A single source supplier is an organization that is designated as the only accepted source 

for the supply of parts, components, materials, or services, even though other sources with 

equivalent technical know-how and production capability may exist. A sole source supplier is an 

organization that is the only source for the supply of parts, components, materials, or services. In 

the case of a sole supplier, no alternative U.S. or non-U.S. based supplier exists other than the 

current supplier. 

Respondents listed 24 inputs with sole source suppliers and 128 inputs with single source 

suppliers. Ten of the listed sole source suppliers (42 percent) and 68 of the listed single source 

suppliers (53 percent) were located in the United States. Chemicals and Magnets had the 

greatest number of sole source and single source inputs, respectively (see Figure IV-12). On a 

percentage basis, over three-quarters of Alloy and Ceramic inputs were sole or single source,

39
which was by far the greatest proportion. Just two input types had no known sole or single 

source suppliers listed, Lamps/Bulbs and Phosphors.

In order to better understand the international market for DENTY-related inputs and suppliers, 

BIS asked respondents to provide the location of their suppliers and the original source country 

of the REE, if known, between 2012 and 2013. For both measures of REE source, the United 

States and China were by far the leading sources (see Figure IV-13). Of the 26 total supplier 

countries listed, the United States was the largest direct supplier of REE-related inputs with 358

inputs identified, followed by China with 107 inputs identified. In terms of county of origin for 

REE-related inputs, respondents were able to identify the primary country of origin for 368 

inputs. REEs originating from China represented roughly two-thirds of these inputs, with those 

from the United States accounting for another 22 percent. All remaining countries accounted for 

40
just under 10 percent of known origin REEs, with no single country accounting for more than 

eight inputs. 

China, the largest non-U.S. supplier overall, was also the largest non-U.S. supplier of sole and 

single source inputs with 16 inputs listed as single source and six inputs listed as sole source (see 

Figure IV-14). Suppliers from the United Kingdom and Japan accounted for the next most 

common sole and single source inputs. Suppliers from these countries, on a percentage basis, 

were far more likely to be sole or single source suppliers with 69 percent of U.K. suppliers 

identified as sole or single source, as with half of Japan-based suppliers compared to 21 percent 

of suppliers from China. 

41
On the whole, respondent inventories were limited with more than half of all inputs having five 

or fewer weeks of supply. Just seven percent of inputs were kept in inventory for longer than six 

months and 11 percent for between three and six months. Inventory turnover was slowest in 

Mixed Compounds with 25 percent of inputs maintained for more than 13 weeks and 63 percent 

for more than five weeks (see Figure IV-15). A significant share of these inventory levels are 

due to Oxides, for which 40 percent of inputs were maintained for more than 13 weeks. 

42
For several input types – Lamps/Bulbs, Ceramics, Electronic Components, and Glass – nearly all 

inputs were kept in inventory for under five weeks (see Figure IV-16). Many of the more basic 

materials, including Refined Rare Earths, Chemicals, and Alloys, tended to have larger inventory 

levels with most inputs remaining in inventory 6-13 weeks or longer. 

43
Supply chain disruptions were only a minor issue for respondents from 2012 to 2014. Seven 

respondents reported 16 total supply chain disruptions (see Figure IV-17). Eleven of these 

disruptions were for suppliers located in China. China was the original source of REE for all 16 

of the supply chain disruptions. The reasons given for disruptions varied, including legal 

holdups, quality issues, and significant price increases. One respondent commented that “price 

increases of 500 percent stopped production” of their terbium-based inputs.

44
45
V. ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGES, COMPETITIVENESS, AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

BIS asked a series of questions about the organizational challenges and the future outlook of the 

respondents in order to better understand the issues they are confronting and the impact on their 

REE-related business lines. The respondents also detailed actions and potential actions that 

could be taken to make their businesses more competitive. Due to the recent volatility in the 

REE market, special attention was paid to REE availability and other supply chain issues that 

may affect an organization’s competitiveness. Finally, BIS sought to understand respondents’ 

capital expenditures and perceived obstacles to expanding REE-related business lines.

Organizational Outlook and Challenges

BIS provided a list of 30 potential organizational challenges (including an ‘Other’ category). 

Respondents were asked to identify those impacting DENTY-related operations from 2010 to 

2013 and those expected to impact DENTY-related operations in the future (see Figure V-1). 

Respondents also ranked the top five issues affecting their DENTY-related operations and 

provided narrative explanations for each. 

46
For all respondents, each challenge on the list was selected as a top five concern at least once.

‘Foreign Competition’ was overall the most commonly selected challenge, with 81 respondents 

(51 percent) reporting that foreign competition was an issue between 2010 and 2013 (see Figure 

V-2). Over twice as many respondents selected ‘Foreign Competition’ as their top challenge 

than any other issue. Respondents were particularly concerned with Chinese competition; one 

respondent commented, “Chinese competition for both [Neodymium Iron Boron] (NdFeB) alloy 

and for NdFeB magnets has shut down several magnet customers in the U.S. over the past 15 

years and has inflicted serious financial damage to all NdFeB alloy producers outside China.” 

‘Material Price Volatility’ was the second most selected organizational challenge, with 76 

respondents (48 percent) reporting it as an issue. As with foreign competition, China was a 

major concern, with several respondents noting sudden Chinese export quota changes in the past 

and fear of additional changes in the future. One issue of note was ‘Non-U.S. Supplier 

47
Reliability,’ which was the fifth most identified challenge overall, but was not frequently cited as 

one of the top five challenges. 

Respondents of different sizes exhibited some variation in the types of challenges they were most 

concerned about. Larger respondents tended to identify more challenges in general, listing and 

average of 10 organizational challenges, compared to seven for medium organizations and six for 

small organizations. Larger respondents were comparatively more concerned about ‘Material 

Price Volatility’ and ‘Environmental Regulations’, while smaller respondents reported 

comparatively outsized concern about ‘Government Regulatory Burden’ (their fourth most 

frequent concern), ‘Export Controls/ITAR’, and ‘Labor Costs’ (see Figure V-3).

48
The top five organizational challenges remained remarkably consistent across respondents 

participating in mid- and later stages in the value chain. Organizations participating in Refining, 

Processing, Metallurgy, Manufacturing, Distribution, Recycling, Substitution, R&D, or End-Use 

all ranked the same organizational challenges. Respondents participating in earlier steps of the 

supply chain – Financing, Exploration, and Extraction – included other challenges in their 

rankings. Examples of these additional organizational challenges include ‘Illegal Rare Earth 

Mining/Smuggling’ and ‘Availability of Capital.’

The 35 respondents (22 percent of the total respondents) who identified their organization as 

dependent on sales to the USG for continued viability had top organizational challenges 

reflecting their USG-oriented business. For these organizations, ‘Government Purchasing 

Volatility’ and ‘Reduction in U.S. Government Demand’ were among the four most frequently 

identified challenges, and were the two most commonly listed top challenges (see Figure V-4).

49
Respondents dependent on the USG also exhibited concern with regard to ‘Export 

Controls/ITAR’ and ‘REE Design-Out/Substitution’.

Respondents were also asked to categorize their organizational challenges by timeframe; issues 

affecting their organization could be marked ‘Current,’ ‘Future,’ or ‘Both.’ In this way, 

respondents could indicate if certain challenges were expected in the future (from 2014 to 2018) 

that may not be impacting their organization currently. In six areas – ‘Domestic Competition’, 

‘Export Controls/ITAR’, ‘Government Regulatory Burden’, ‘Illegal Rare Earth 

Mining/Smuggling’, ‘Government Purchasing Volatility’, and ‘Reduction in USG Demand’ –

fewer respondents anticipated challenges in the future compared to current challenges. In nearly 

every other issue area more respondents expected current challenges to rise in the future. 

50
The difference between current and future expectations was especially notable for ‘Aging 

Equipment, Facilities, or Infrastructure’ and ‘REE Design-Out/Substitution’ (see Figure V-5). 

These two areas had both the highest number of respondents indicating they would be futureonly challenges, as well as the highest differential between ‘future-only’ and ‘current-only’ 

selections. ‘Aging Equipment, Facilities, or Infrastructure’ was the only issue area for which as 

many respondents selected ‘future-only’ as selected ‘current-only’ and ‘both current and future’ 

combined. 

In addition to asking respondents to report challenges to their organizational viability, BIS 

provided respondents with an opportunity to request information on federal and state services 

aimed at helping companies better compete in the global marketplace. Sixty-three of the 160

respondents indicated they would like to receive information on at least one of the 14 assistance 

51
areas (see Figure V-6). BIS generated bulletins covering programs from a wide variety of USG 

agencies, including the Small Business Administration, Department of Labor, National Science 

Foundation, Department of State, and several Department of Commerce agencies, such as the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership. 

Respondents requested information in all topic areas, with Business Development, R&D, and 

Global Exporting Opportunities cited as the most common requests. Small organizations tended 

to be comparatively more interested in assistance with Small Business Innovation Research 

(SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs and Product/Service 

Development, while larger respondents had comparatively more interest in Global Export 

Opportunities and Training Opportunities. 

52
Competitiveness

In an effort to understand potential supply chain constraints on the industrial base, BIS asked 

respondents about possible changes in REE availability in the near-future. The perceived net 

availability of all REEs was largely stable, with most respondents expecting no change in 

availability between 2014 and 2016 (see Figure V-7). At least as many respondents expected 

increases in availability as expected decreases for every element, with the biggest differentials 

between increases and decreases found for Gadolinium (+9) and Neodymium (+7). The greatest 

volatility in expectations was for Dysprosium, where six respondents (10 percent of those 

providing an estimate) predicted decreased availability and seven respondents (11 percent) 

predicted increased availability (see Figure V-7).

53
BIS posed a series of hypothetical scenarios in order to better understand the organizational 

outlook of the respondents. Two of these scenarios focused on supply chain availability and its 

potential impact on organizations’ REE-related business lines. Respondents were asked how a 

hypothetical increase in both U.S. imports and overall supply of REEs and REE-related products 

would affect the sustainment of their REE-related business lines. A low percentage of 

respondents (10 respondents in total, six percent) believed that an increase in U.S. imports and 

overall REE-related supply would negatively impact their REE-related business lines in the short 

or long term. Nearly all of these 10 respondents were suppliers of refined rare earth products or 

magnets. These respondents commented that an increased supply in REEs and REE-related 

products could cause ‘price erosion in the general market’ which may ‘oversaturate the market’ 

and ‘reduce future investments’ (see Figure V-8).

Fifteen respondents (nine percent) believe that an increased supply would have a positive shortterm effect on their REE-related business lines, while 40 respondents (25 percent) believed that it

would have a positive long-term effect. One respondent suggested that, “More mining means 

more product. This means lower material costs.” In addition to several comments about lower 

costs, one respondent also hypothesized that, “Increased supply of REEs generally helps to spur 

increased demand, which is good for REE producers.”

A majority of respondents believed that a hypothetical increased supply would have either no 

impact on their business lines (45 respondents – 28 percent) or did not know (50 respondents –

31 percent). One respondent commented, “Current global supply is sufficient to meet the 

organization’s needs; an increase in supply will not affect this situation.”

54
A second BIS hypothetical scenario asked if organizations’ REE-related business lines would be 

affected by a decrease in the number of U.S. located suppliers for REEs and REE-related 

products. The largest percentage of respondents believed that the decrease in U.S. located 

suppliers would have no impact on their REE-related business lines (44 respondents – 27 

percent) or did not know (47 respondents - 31 percent). A small percentage of respondents (10 

percent total) believed that a U.S. based supply decrease would have either a short or long-term 

positive impact on their REE-related business lines (see Figure V-9).

A larger percentage of respondents believe that a decrease in U.S. located suppliers would have 

either a short-term (10 respondents – six percent) or long-term negative impact on their REErelated business lines (43 respondents - 27 percent). Respondents commented that, “foreign 

suppliers would result in higher shipping costs” and that “less overall options [could create] 

dependence on single source locations”. Other respondents worried that a U.S. supplier decrease 

55
would “put upward price pressures on our current suppliers” and “give China a greater 

monopoly”.

Respondents were asked to identify key actions their organizations had taken from 2010 to 2013

and were planning to take from 2014 to 2018 in order to improve their overall competitiveness. 

‘Innovation, R&D, and Design Improvements’ was the highest ranked category in both past and 

future actions, with 70 and 67 respondents (44 and 42 percent) selecting that category. 

Respondents planned to emphasize ‘R&D and process development’ and to take further actions

recycling REE products such as cerium polishing powder and phosphor waste. The second most 

frequently identified improvement category was ‘Capital Investment’, with 40 respondents (25

percent) noting it as a past action and 39 respondents (24 percent) as a future action. Actions in 

this category included an ‘increase of inventory of key items,’ the building of a new production 

56
facility in the U.S., ‘more sophisticated machining capabilities,’ and scaling up REE production 

(see Figure V-10).

Two improvement areas – ‘Customer Service/Quality Control Improvements’ and ‘Staff 

Adjustments’ – were notable in that significantly more respondents identified this as already 

accomplished than planned for the future. In three areas – ‘Marketing Improvements’, ‘Business 

Restructuring’, ‘Patent Protection/Investment in IPR and Legal’ – was there a slight edge toward 

future improvements. 

57
Capital Expenditures

Aggregate capital expenditures from 2010 to 2013 were heavily directed toward investments in 

machinery, equipment, and vehicles. This focus on updating or upgrading production could 

reflect concerns about expected challenges from aging equipment, facilities, and infrastructure

noted earlier. Overall capital expenditures showed no clear trend across the period 2010 to 2013, 

with total expenditures totaling $4.7 billion in 2013, up from $4 billion 2010 but down from $6 

billion in 2011 (see Figure V-11).

While 130 of the 160 respondents reported having capital expenditures in 2013, just 35 reported 

REE-related capital expenditures, with a total of $505 million. Most of these expenditures were 

attributable to a single respondent, which accounted for more than 50 percent of all REE-related 

58
capital expenditures. Thirteen respondents reported that their REE-related capital expenditures 

exceeded one million dollars in 2013.

Respondents were asked if their organization’s capital expenditures had been adversely impacted 

by reductions in USG defense spending in the past (2010 to 2013), future (2014 to 2018), or

both. Most respondents capital expenditures were not affected by reduced USG defense 

spending, though 32 (20 percent) indicated that it had been or would be, with 26 of these 

indicating it was an ongoing issue. One large respondent with REE-related capital expenditures 

commented, “Sequestration has impacted the timing of the key DOD programs we currently 

support and plan to support in the future”. Another respondent wrote, “Future demand is 

uncertain and we are reluctant to release capital until the market is more clear”.

Respondents were asked to describe any obstacles to their future procurement of new machinery, 

technology, and/or facilities necessary for expanding their REE-related business lines. ‘Return 

on Investment’ was the most-often selected obstacle for both small businesses and larger

businesses, with 41 respondents (26 percent) selecting it (see Figure V-12). When discussing this 

category, one respondent mentioned, “Current Chinese pricing competition makes it very 

difficult to make a sufficient ROI on capital purchases of new equipment, facilities or 

technology. Operating costs must be held at current levels or even reduced to remain 

competitive.”

The most significant barriers to entry specific to small businesses were ‘Lead Time’, 

‘Licensing/Permits’, and ‘Environmental Regulations.’ In each of these areas the number of 

small businesses selecting the problem outnumbered non-small businesses, despite small 

businesses representing under half of the overall respondents. 

59
60
VI. INNOVATION: SUBSTITUTION, RECYCLING, AND R&D

With supply chain constraints and price volatility among the leading challenges to organizations 

working with REEs and REE-related products, recycling and substitution may offer opportunities

to help stabilize REE supply. Recycling is defined as the safe removal of REE and REE-related 

inputs from finished goods for reuse in new products. Substitution is defined as the act of 

replacing a REE or REE-related input with another input. 

Respondents detailed the strategies they employed with respect to recycling and substitution as 

well as constraints limiting their organization’s ability to implement REE recycling or 

substitution programs. BIS also captured data covering larger trends in Research & 

Development (R&D) among the respondents, with a particular focus on REE-related business 

lines and products.

Recycling 

Respondents were asked whether they recycled REEs or REE-related inputs as well as whether 

they used recycled REEs or REE-related products. Thirty-seven respondents (23 percent)

recycled REEs or REE-related products, and 31 respondents (20 percent) use recycled REEs or 

REE-related products. The organizations that responded that they recycle REEs were primarily 

Commercial organizations (33 respondents, 89 percent), with three U.S. Government 

Organizations and one University also positively responding. All sizes of organizations recycle 

REEs or REE-related products. Of the 37 respondents who recycle, 13 organizations (35

percent) were large or very large, 11 organizations (30 percent) were small, seven organizations

(19 percent) had no sales, and six organizations (16 percent) were medium-sized (see Figure VI1).

61
Six organizations listed recycling as their primary line of business, and another 14 listed it as an 

additional business line. For the organizations that conducted REE recycling as an additional 

line of business, the most often cited reason for doing so was to ‘reduce unit or acquisition costs’ 

and to ‘increase profit margins.’ These and similar comments were offered by REE or REErelated product manufacturers of all sizes.

Respondents were asked to identify the primary prohibiting factors to recycling. ‘Cost’ and 

‘Expertise’ were cited as the most common constraints, with 17 and 14 respondents citing those

constraints, respectively (see Figure VI-2). ‘Technology’ and ‘Product Performance’ were the 

third and fourth most cited constraints, with eight and seven respondents.

While discussing the cost constraints of recycling low volumes of REEs, one respondent

commented, “The cost of recycling, and the technology and resources required to recycle REEs, 

62
will not be economically attractive given the availability of primary REE on site”. Other 

organizations commented that recycling was limited to certain elements or compounds, and they 

did not have the expertise to recycle their REEs and REE-related products such as polyphase 

crystal or rare earth magnets. Another factor not listed was the limited volume of products; 

several respondents commented that the quantity of REEs or REE-related products used on an 

annual basis was too low to make recycling ‘worthwhile.’

For those respondents who did not currently recycle REEs or REE-related products, they were 

further asked to assess the company’s perceptions of the feasibility of beginning REE recycling 

programs. Of the 67 respondents to the question, four respondents believed implementing a 

recycling program was feasible (See Figure VI-3). Thirty-six respondents (23 percent) claimed 

beginning a recycling program would be difficult, and 18 respondents (11 percent) argued it 

would be impossible. The respondents who ranked REE recycling programs as ‘Somewhat 

63
Difficult,’ ‘Difficult,’ or ‘Impossible’ were commercial organizations of all sizes (small, 

medium, large, and very large).

Separately from REE recycling capability, respondents were asked if their organizations used 

recycled REEs or REE-related products. Seventy-nine percent of respondents indicated that they 

did not use recycled REEs or REE-related products. Of those 136 organizations that did not use 

recycled REEs, 132 (98 percent) had no plans to use recycled REE’s in the next five years, from 

2014-2018.

The organizations that did not use or plan to use recycled REEs or REE products were asked to 

identify the primary constraints to doing so (see Figure VI-4). ‘Product Performance’ was the 

most frequently cited constraint to using recycled REEs, with 24 respondents citing it as their 

primary constraint. ‘Expertise,’ ‘Qualification Standards,’ and ‘Cost’ were also listed by 12, 11, 

64
and eight respondents, respectively. When asked to elaborate, one respondent commented that 

“Product performance is not acceptable.” Another respondent commented, “As long as supply 

remains available, requalifying recycled REE would not be cost effective,” while a third 

respondent believed that “recycling costs are higher than mining costs.”

Substitution

Respondents were asked if their organization substituted REEs with different REEs or non-REE 

materials. Only 13 respondents (eight percent) substituted REEs with different REEs, non-REE 

materials, or both (see Figure VI-5). 

However, a higher percentage of organizations responded that they used products containing 

REE substitutes. Fifteen respondents (nine percent) use products that contain REE substitutes.

Of those fifteen organizations using products containing REE substitutes, 10 were commercial 

65
organizations primarily working in manufacturing, distribution, or end use/applications. The five 

remaining organizations using REE substitutes were U.S. Government organizations or 

Universities conducting R&D. 

The respondents who did not substitute REEs or use products with REE substitutes were asked to 

identify the primary constraint to substituting REEs with different REEs or non-REE products. 

The most commonly cited constraints were similar for both areas, with ‘Product Performance’

being the most noted constraint (see Figure VI-6). Respondents were vocal about their inability 

to substitute REEs due to their “critical performance” attributes. For example, one respondent 

commented, “Neodymium is the strongest natural magnetic material, there is no substitute 

available with the strength or [we would] already be using it in our magnets.” On using products 

with substitutes, another respondent wrote, “Ceramic magnets are much weaker than REE 

magnets – end product performance would be significantly different.” Other elements 

66
specifically cited for their unique performance attributes were Cerium, Erbium, Yttrium, and 

Ytterbium.

The second and third most cited constraints to REE substitution were ‘Other’ (20 respondents), 

and ‘Technology’ (10 respondents). ‘Other’ categories focused on the availability of REE 

substitutes for specific elements such as Cerium or Lanthanium. Additional respondents focused 

on the challenges associated with requalifying REE substitutes: “Existing products are qualified 

to military, space and medical regulatory agencies such as [the] FDA. Material changes are not 

allowed – would require requalification of the product line.” For ‘Technology’, the prevailing 

explanation was that the technology did not exist to substitute for the REEs in question. 

Respondents who did not use products containing REE substitutes were also asked to indicate the 

feasibility of using REE substitutes or products containing REE substitutes. Eighteen 

67
respondents (27 percent) indicated that it was impossible to use substitutes, and nine respondents 

(14 percent) indicated that it would be difficult. Five respondents (seven percent) indicated that 

using REE substitutes was feasible or somewhat difficult. (see Figure VI-7).

Research & Development

Overall research and development (R&D) expenditures were relatively stable between 2010 and 

2013, peaking at $6 billion in 2012 (see Figure VI-8). Respondents also reported type of R&D 

undertaken, which was also relatively stable and evenly spread. Forty-two percent of R&D 

funding was devoted to Applied Research in 2013, up from 41 percent in 2010. The portion of 

68
funding devoted to Basic Research rose slightly from 30 to 31 percent, while Product/Process 

Development decreased slightly from 28 to 27 percent of total R&D funding. 

At an individual respondent level, most R&D was not directed toward REE-specific areas. 

While 111 respondents had R&D expenditures in 2013, just 61 reported R&D expenditures for 

their REE-related business lines, and these expenditures totaled $254 million—approxiately four 

percent of the total R&D expenditures. 

Expenditures were highly concentrated, with three large research-oriented organizations 

accounting for over half of the total R&D expenditures from 2010 to 2013. Two of these 

organizations reported no REE-specific R&D expenditures, while the third spent roughly 10 

percent of their overall R&D budget on REE-related R&D. 

69
In order to better understand what types of organizations were most focused on R&D, BIS 

calculated the median expenditure as a percent of net sales for each business line in the value 

chain step. This calculation created an indicator of R&D expenditure intensity, which varied 

greatly across the business lines. Those respondents identifying R&D specifically as one of their 

business lines spent a much higher percentage of their sales on R&D than did other organizations 

working in other steps of the value chain, with the median R&D intensity for the R&D business 

line calculated as 23 percent (see Figure VI-9). The R&D expenditure intensity dropped 

significantly from there. The second, third, and fourth, business lines – End-Use/Application, 

Manufacturing, and Processing – represented R&D expenditures of six, four, and three percent of 

their net sales.

The source of R&D funding was predominantly internal. In 2013, 81.3 percent of respondents’ 

R&D funding sources were reported as internal. Thirteen percent of R&D funding came from 

70
the U.S. Government, while 3.6 percent came from U.S. industry (see Figure VI-10). Thirty-five 

organizations received federal R&D funding, and 18 of these had REE-related expenditures. 

Unsurprisingly, these respondents tended to have more involvement with the USG across their 

business. The 18 respondents with REE-related R&D expenditures and federal R&D funding 

listed 97 USG programs they supported (over one-quarter of the total), and 43 percent of all 

reported REE-related sales to the USG. 

Outside of these USG-focused respondents, relatively little R&D as a whole was focused on 

defense uses or REE-related business lines. Total defense-related R&D expenditures were 

roughly $500 million annually – under ten percent of all R&D expenditures. REE-related R&D 

was performed at a lower rate, though it rose from $175 million in 2010 to $254 million in 2013 

(see Figure IV-11). 

71
BIS asked respondents if their defense-related R&D shaped the development of their commercial 

lines (see Figure VI-12). Most responded ‘No’ or ‘Not Applicable’, but 22 respondents (14 

percent) indicated that their defense-related R&D did shape their commercial lines. Nearly all of 

these 22 respondents supported a USG agency, while other categories were virtually evenly split. 

Those respondents indicating that their defense-related R&D shaped their commercial lines 

represented several business lines (Manufacturers and End-Use/Application predominantly) and 

worked on several product lines, such as optical thin films, fiber laser technologies, and nextgeneration magnets. 

72
Respondents were also asked if their organizations performed any R&D activities related to REE 

recycling or substitution. A total of 20 respondents indicated they performed REE recycling or 

substitution R&D, with five doing both, eight performing recycling R&D only, and seven 

performing substitution R&D only. Most of these organizations were devoting little to REE 

recycling or substitution R&D, with 12 reporting five percent of less of their R&D expenditures 

focused on this area. However, five respondents did note that over one-third of their R&D 

expenditures were targeted at REE recycling or substitution. One of these respondents indicated 

that their R&D was focused on the “development of cost-effective processes to separate rare 

earth from electronic and industrial sources”, while another noted the recovery of REEs from 

fluorescent lamps as an area of focus. 

73
VII. SUPPORT FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The U.S. Government (USG) is an important source of business for many respondent 

organizations, particularly for defense applications. Although the period from 2010 to 2013 was 

one of diminishing overall sales to the USG, these transactions still accounted for nearly onethird of all reported sales in 2013. One hundred two of the 160 respondents (64 percent) reported 

that they provided support to at least one USG agency from 2010 to 2013.

The greatest number of respondents supported the Department of Defense (DOD) Service 

Branches, the Department of Energy, Missile Defense Agency, and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) (see Figure VII-1). ‘Other’ agencies included the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

74
Respondents were asked if their organizations considered themselves dependent on USG 

programs for continued viability. To more accurately portray potential dependence on the USG, 

BIS also added a calculated measure of dependence, using a threshold of at least 25 percent of 

sales to the USG. Twenty-two respondents (14 percent) were both self-declared and calculated 

by BIS to be dependent on the USG. Twelve additional respondents (eight percent) were 

calculated to be dependent on the USG, while thirteen respondents (eight percent) declared 

themselves dependent but were not determined by BIS to be so, providing a total of 47

respondents that were dependent on the USG (see Figure VII-2).

The types of organizations dependent on the USG for continued viability (both self-determined 

and calculated by BIS) varied across size and business line. While most business lines were 

represented in these respondents, the lines with the greater proportions of USG dependent 

respondents were Substitution, R&D, and Recycling, with a combined 46 percent of respondents 

75
identified as potentially dependent on the USG for continued viability. Respondents from these 

categories offered further explanation for their dependence on USG programs. For example, one 

organization working in R&D commented, “Federal grants and contracts are critical for research 

funding.” Another respondent noted their efforts to diversify writing, “In the early days, 100

percent of our business was based on U.S. Government programs. We are working to reduce 

dependency on U.S. Government programs but those programs still represent roughly 60 percent

of our business activity.”

A significant number of the 102 respondents supporting USG agencies were dependent on the 

USG for their continued viability. Over half of the respondents supporting four USG agencies 

were dependent on the USG, including nearly three-quarters of those supporting the Missile 

Defense Agency (see Figure VII-3). USG dependent respondents also tended to work with more 

USG agencies than other respondents, supporting an average of nearly half of the 10 USG 

agencies listed. Respondents not dependent on the USG supported, on average, under two USG 

agencies. 

76
For those respondents supporting USG programs, BIS asked if their organization’s DOD-specific 

REE-related business lines were integrated with or separate from their commercial operations

Sixty-one respondents had REE-related business lines that were integrated between their DOD 

and commercial businesses. Fifteen respondents indicated that their REE-related business lines 

were separate. Respondents dependent on the USG were more likely to have separate business 

lines, reporting separate lines at nearly twice the rate of those not dependent on the USG. 

BIS also asked respondents if their organization could readily convert government business lines 

to commercial ones in the case of a sudden or steep decline in USG demand for REE-related 

products and/or services (see Figure VII-4). Sixty-five respondents (41 percent) indicated that 

their REE-related business lines were convertible from USG to commercial. Thirty respondents

(19 percent) indicated that they could not convert their REE-related business lines from USG to 

commercial.

77
The ability of respondents to convert REE-related business lines in the event of a steep decline in 

USG demand was fairly consistent across respondent size categories (see Figure VII-5). Size

categories were determined by sales. Very large companies were the most convertible. Six of 

the 10 very large companies (60 percent) were able to convert their USG business lines to 

commercial in the event of a steep decline in USG demand. Small companies were less versatile 

but also more abundant. Twenty-five of 74 small companies (33 percent) were able to convert 

their USG business lines to commercial business lines in the event of steep decline in USG 

demand. Fifty-seven percent of medium-sized companies and forty-eight percent of large 

companies could switch USG business lines to commercial business lines.

78
In general respondents closer to the end of the value chain were more likely to be able to readily 

convert government business lines to commercial ones (see Figure VII-6). Respondents focused 

on Substitution, Recycling, Distribution, and End-Uses were all more likely to be able to convert 

USG business lines to commercial than areas like Extraction, Exploration, R&D, and Processing, 

perhaps reflecting the more capital-intensive nature of the latter business lines. 

79
Respondents were asked to indicate how vulnerable their REE-related business lines were in 

response to variability in several sources of demand – USG defense, USG non-defense, and 

Commercial. Across the board, respondents’ REE-related business lines showed more 

vulnerability to demand fluctuations than non-REE lines (see Figure VII-7). Of these, 

commercial REE and non-REE-related business lines showed the highest vulnerability to sudden 

shifts in demand. Seventy-six respondents (48 percent) indicated that their REE-related business 

lines were vulnerable to variability in commercial demand. Fifty-seven respondents (36 percent) 

indicated that their non-REE-related business lines were vulnerable to variability in commercial 

demand. 

80
81
VIII: TRADE

The REE and REE-related products marketplace is global, with many REEs originally mined 

abroad—particularly in China—and many products containing REEs manufactured in the U.S. 

and sold around the world. In order to understand the respondents’ activities in the global REE 

marketplace, BIS asked a series of questions about imports and exports of REEs, with a special 

focus on the DENTY elements. Respondents were asked to detail their importing and exporting 

activities of REE-related ore, compounds, and metals in terms of quantity, value, material 

product, and countries of trading partners.

Respondents were also asked to identify trends in trading REE products and anticipated 

challenges in doing so in the future. BIS also asked a series of hypothetical questions on 

potential changes in the production and supply of REEs in order to better understand the 

respondents’ outlooks on their exposure to changes in the way REEs are supplied, both 

domestically and internationally.

Imports

Sixty-six respondents indicated they imported REE-related ore, mixed compound, inorganic 

purified compound, organic purified compound, mixed metal, and/or purified metal between 

2010 and 2013. Most importing respondents (46) imported from a single country, with China 

accounting for 28 (61 percent) of these single country importers. All but five of the remaining 

importers imported from two countries, and only two respondents with multiple countries of 

import did not import from China. 

82
Respondents identified a total of 14 countries from which they imported these REE-related 

items, where the country of origin and the type of REE imported equaled to a total of a 

combination of 250 country and REE pairings (see Figure VIII-1). Among the DENTY REEs, 

Neodymium was the most common import, listed 66 times from 11 countries. Erbium imports 

were notable as the element least concentrated in China; while nine respondents imported 

Erbium from China, five imported it from Canada and three from Japan and the U.K. For every 

other REE, China accounted for more than twice as many import identifications as the next 

closest country. 

83
Neodymium and ‘Other REEs’ were the most frequently identified REEs imported (see Figure 

VIII-2). Forty-three respondents (65 percent) reported importing Neodymium and 42

respondents (64 percent) reported importing ‘Other REE’. The remaining DENTY elements –

Dysprosium, Erbium, Terbium, and Ytterbium – were imported by at least 20 respondents (30 

percent). One third of importing respondents imported just one REE, with most importing either 

Other REEs (9 respondents) or Neodymium (7 respondents). Just one or two respondents for 

each DENTY element reported importing only that single REE. 

Respondents reported a total of $1.1 billion worth of imports of REE-related ore, compounds,

and metals from 2010 to 2013. The top three importers accounted for nearly $995 million of 

these imports (91 percent), and the top five accounted for 96 percent of imports (see Figure VIII3). All of these major importers brought in multiple REE types, including non-DENTY REEs. 

While China accounted for 91 percent of the volume by weight of REEs imported by 

84
respondents, it made up 53 percent ($574 million) of the value of imports. Japan accounted for 

22 percent of the value of REE imports with $242 million. France and the United Kingdom were 

the third and fourth highest in import values, at 16 percent ($179 million) and 5 percent (59 

million) of the total, respectively. ‘Other’ nations represented the remaining three percent ($37

million).

Respondents reported which REE they imported from each of the 14 countries. Four countries –

Canada, China, Japan, and the United Kingdom – supplied all focus elements (see Figure VIII4). Another six countries provided only one of the DENTY elements, each to one respondent. In 

total, respondents listed at least six countries of import for each element (five countries for 

Ytterbium), with 11 different countries of import identified for Neodymium. 

85
Respondents also reported the material type of each import from the subcategories of ore, mixed 

compound, mixed metal, purified compound, and purified metal.8 By number of imports, 

‘Mixed Compound – Oxide’ and ‘Inorganic Purified Compound’ were the most frequently 

identified, and included all REE types (see Figure VIII-5). Some material types were imported 

for more specific REE uses, such as ‘Mixed Metal Alloys’, which were imported only for 

8 Material Type Categories Provided: Ore (Bastnaesite, Monazite, Xenotime, Eudialyte, Ancylite, Allanite, 

Churchite, Limorite, Kaisonite, Fergusonite, Apatite, Other), Mixed Compound (Concentrate, Chloride, Nitrate, 

Inorganic Rare Earth Compounds, Organic Rare Earth Compounds, Fluoride, Hydroxide, Oxide, Sulfate, Rare Earth 

Garnet, Other), Mixed Metal (Mischmetal, Rare Earth Silicide, Rare Earth Metal, Mixed Metal Rare Earth Alloy, 

Didymium, Lanthanum Silicide, Cerium Silicide, Other), Inorganic Purified Compound, Organic Purified 

Compound, Purified Metal, Unknown, Not Applicable.

86
Neodymium and Dysprosium (of the DENTY), and ‘Mixed Compound – Inorganic’, which was 

used primarily for Terbium. 

Values and quantities of material types imported varied greatly (see Figure VIII-6). The greatest 

value of imported materials was Inorganic Mixed Compounds and Inorganic Purified 

Compounds, while other types of Mixed Compounds, particularly oxides, accounted for by far 

the greatest weight of material imported. 

87
Respondents reporting REE imports were located at different steps in the supply chain network, 

as determined by their reported business lines. The 66 importing respondents represented all 12 

value-step categories present in the full respondent sample.9 However, not every respondent 

within any single value-step category imported REE ore, compound, or metal. Sixty percent of 

respondents working in Distribution imported REE, representing the highest level of import 

participation within any value-step category. Of those conducting R&D as their primary 

business line, 51 percent reported importing. Of Manufacturers, 43 percent reported importing. 

In contrast, less than 20 percent of participants in extraction, exploration, and refining reported 

9 These value steps were determined in Q1c.A of the assessment. BIS provided the list, with definitions that can be 

found in the glossary. Value Steps: Financing, Exploration, Extraction, Refining, Processing, Metallurgy, 

Manufacturing, Distribution, Recycling/Reclaim, Substitution, Research and Development, End Use/Application.

88
importing (see Figure VIII-7). This is not surprising, due to the nature of each of these business 

lines.

BIS collected data not only on current REE imports, but also on expected import changes and 

expected challenges. Twenty-two respondents (13 percent of total respondents, 33 percent of 

importers) reported anticipating increasing their imports of REE-related material in the next five 

years. Of those, almost half (10 respondents) expected to experience challenges in doing so.

Most of the challenges related to concerns about the availability of REEs, particularly in China. 

In an effort to understand future trends in REE imports, BIS asked respondents to predict the 

impacts of a series of hypothetical scenarios about possible market situations. Respondents 

89
recorded whether they believed each scenario would affect their ability to maintain their REErelated business lines, and whether that impact would be positive or negative, and in the short or 

long-term. 

In the first hypothetical scenario, respondents were asked to report the anticipated impact of 

China eliminating or softening its export quota restrictions on REEs and REE-related products. 

Thirty-six percent of respondents anticipated a positive impact, while seven percent anticipated a 

negative impact. A respondent predicting a positive impact explained that the softening of 

export quota restrictions “levels the playing field between REE consumers in China and the rest 

of the world. Price and availability should improve.” Thirty-one percent of respondents 

predicted that this elimination would have no impact, with one respondent claiming that quotas 

were irrelevant because “[China has] exceeded actual exports for years”.

In the second hypothetical scenario, respondents were asked to report the anticipated impact of

the imposition of more stringent production controls on China’s REE-related products. Thirty 

percent of respondents anticipated no impact, and approximately the same proportion (29 

percent) believed such controls would have a negative impact on their REE-related business 

lines. To explain this negative impact, one respondent claimed that, “Restrictions in supply of 

REEs to electronics industry will push component prices up.” Another respondent commented,

“The last production control in Chinese REE mining affected us for at least a year.” One 

respondent expected a positive impact, predicting that such controls would “raise costs of 

Chinese production and level the playing field for domestic REE to compete as a non-China 

miner.”

90
Exports

Of the 160 organizations surveyed, 36 respondents (23 percent) reported exporting REE-related 

ore, compound, or metal to 56 countries between 2010 and 2013. Another 36 respondents listed 

non-U.S. customers of their products or services, suggesting they exported intermediary or 

finished REE-containing products (see Figure VIII-8). Eighty-eight respondents (55 percent) 

reported that they did not export DENTY or other REE-related products during that period.

For respondents exporting REE-related ore, compound, or metal, BIS asked which of the focus 

DENTY elements were being exported between 2010 and 2013 (see Figure VIII-9). All five 

DENTY elements were exported, with Neodymium being exported by 24 respondents (67 

percent) and Erbium being exported the least, with 10 respondents (28 percent) indicating that 

they exported it. ‘Other REEs’ were also exported by 24 respondents. 

91
Of the 56 named countries to which respondents exported REE-related ores, compounds, or 

metals, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom (U.K.), and France were most frequently 

identified (see Figure VIII-10). Seventeen respondents (42 percent) reported exporting to 

Canada and 17 respondents (42 percent) reported exporting to Germany, while fifteen

respondents each (38 percent) reported exporting to the U.K. and France. 

92
The total value of REE-related ore, compounds, and metals exported by the respondents between 

2010 and 2013 was $525 million. While Japan was only the fourth highest importing nation by 

volume, it was by far the largest importing nation in terms of value. Respondents reported 

exporting $146 million of REE-related ore, compound, or metal to Japan during the time period 

(28 percent of the total value), followed by $108 million (21 percent) exported to Vietnam, and 

$45 million (nine percent) to Thailand (see Figure VIII-11).

93
As with imports (see Figure VIII-6), ‘Mixed Compound – Inorganic’ was the leading material 

type by value, though by weight ‘Mixed Metal – Other’ was by far the most frequently exported 

material type (see Figure VIII-12). ‘Inorganic Purified Compound’, the second largest import by 

value, was far less commonly exported, as it was likely incorporated into products.

94
Respondents reporting REE exports were located at different value steps in the supply chain 

network, as determined by their reported business lines. The 36 exporting respondents 

represented all 12 value step categories present in the full respondent sample.10 Forty-six percent 

of respondents working in Distribution exported REE, representing the highest level of export

participation within any value-step category. Of those working in Substitution or Financing as 

their primary business lines, 33 percent reported exporting. For those conducting Metallurgy, 29

percent reported exporting. In contrast, 10 percent of participants in Refining and Extraction 

reported exporting (see Figure VIII-13).

10 These value steps were determined in Q1c.A of the assessment. BIS provided the list, with definitions that can be 

found in Appendix 1. Value Steps: Financing, Exploration, Extraction, Refining, Processing, Metallurgy, 

Manufacturing, Distribution, Recycling/Reclaim, Substitution, Research and Development, End Use/Application.

95
BIS also collected data on the respondents’ views of current and future trends in exporting REE 

products. One quarter of respondents (10 respondents) indicated that they planned to increase 

exports in the next five years. Of those respondents planning to increase their exports, three (33 

percent) anticipated challenges to doing so. Whether or not respondents were planning to 

increase their exports, BIS asked them to identify the most anticipated current and/or future 

challenges to exporting DENTY or other REEs (see Figure VIII-15). ‘Competition,’ ‘Price 

Volatility’ and ‘Demand’ were the challenges most often cited, with five respondents listing 

‘Competition’ and four respondents selecting ‘Price Volatility’ and ‘Demand’ each. 

When asked to explain their choice of anticipated challenges to exporting REE products, 

respondents commented on a variety of challenges. One respondent commented, “The biggest 

challenge we face in the future for growing our business outside the US is competing against low 

Chinese RE alloy pricing levels.” Another respondent commented, “In order to export REE96
related products, we need orders for them. Demand is miniscule. Can be expected to drift 

upward, but never be significant.” 

IX. EMPLOYMENT

Of the respondents’ 203,896 total full time equivalent (FTE) employees, 11,395 (5.6 percent) 

performed REE-related duties.

11 Between the 2010 and 2013, total employee count remained 

relatively constant, decreasing by two percent overall. However, REE-related employee counts 

11 A full time equivalent (FTE) employee was defined as 40 person-hours of work. Two employees working 20 

hours per week would constitute one FTE. 

97
rose during the four-year time period, increasing by 10 percent, to 5.6 percent of total 

employment in 2013(see Figure IX-1).

For the most part, smaller companies dedicated a larger portion of their workforce to REErelated jobs. Twenty-six percent of small business workforces and 28 percent of medium-size 

business workforces were REE-related, compared to 17 percent of large business workforces. 

Very large businesses were even less focused on REEs, with three percent of their FTEs 

dedicated to REE-related business lines (see Figure IX-2).

98
Respondents in different business lines reported varying trends in REE-related employment, 

providing potential insight into expected areas of growth. Those respondents listing Exploration 

as one of their business lines reported very large increases in REE-related employment, with 

employment nearly tripling from 2010 to 2013 (see Figure IX-3). The next three business lines 

increasing REE-related employment were Extraction, Refining, and R&D with double digit 

increases over the four-year period. Decreases in employment among respondents working in 

Recycling and Substitution, may highlight global increases in REE demand and prices. 

99
BIS asked respondents to estimate the percentage of employees performing one of the listed 

professional occupation types, including an ‘Other’ category (see Figure IX-4). The percentage

breakdown of employees in each occupation did not alter significantly during the 2010-2013 

period. Production Line Workers constituted the largest workforce percentage, with an average 

of 33 percent of FTEs working in that occupation. An average of 21 percent of FTEs worked as 

Administrative, Management, and Legal Staff, followed by 18 percent working as Engineers, 

Scientists, and R&D staff. Other professional occupation categories included Market and Sales, 

Testing Operators, Facility & Maintenance Staff, and Information Technology (IT) 

Professionals.

100
Thirty-five respondents (22 percent) reported difficulty hiring or retaining employees. These 

challenges were shared by respondents of all organization sizes, with very little variance in the 

percentage reporting difficulty. There was significantly more variance across business lines, 

with nearly half the respondents participating in Exploration, Extraction, or Refining reporting 

difficulty hiring or retaining workers, compared to just 15 percent of respondents engaged in 

Distribution. Reasons for hiring difficulties in these business lines were consistent across 

respondents, with trouble attracting people to their remote locations and finding workers with the 

required specialized skills. 

Across all respondents, the leading reasons cited for difficulty in hiring or retaining employees

were that respondents’ particular fields required highly specialized skills and that there was a 

lack of qualified domestic candidates (see Figure IX-5). Many respondents included narrative 

explanations for these selections. According to one respondent, “There are only five colleges for 

101
laser PhDs,” while others also wrote of insufficient educational backgrounds, commenting 

“[There is a] lack of doctoral level training relevant to our lines of research,” and noting the 

“Rare skill set of PhD level laser physicists.” 

BIS asked respondents to report up to five of the skills essential to their organizations’ REErelated business lines.12 Sixty-two respondents indicated Engineering as a key skill, and 52 

indicated Production/Manufacturing (see Figure IX-6). Programming/Analytical skills (six 

respondents) were the least commonly selected skills category. Respondents provided narrative 

explanations for each selection, which often pointed towards much more specific skill sets within 

12 Listed Key Skills/Competencies: Design, Engineering, Management/Legal/Finance, Production/Manufacturing, 

Quality Control/Testing, Programming/Analytical, Scientific/Laboratory, Other

102
each category. For example, respondents who indicated ‘Engineering’ discussed ceramics, 

chemical processing, lasers, electro-optics, magnets, software, and safety, among other 

specializations. One respondent commented that REE-related business lines required engineering 

skills “beyond standard fiber production.”

To ease the difficulty in hiring and retaining employees with needed key skills, companies often 

engage in workforce development programs. BIS asked respondents to rank their preferred 

workforce development programs from a provided list.

13 Organizations most commonly 

preferred On-The-Job training (62 respondents, 36 percent) (see Figure IX-7). Internships (19

13 Listed Workforce Development Programs: Apprenticeship, Certification, Detail/Rotation, Fellowship, Internship, 

On-The-Job Training, Reimbursement/Subsidized Education, Specialized Coursework

103
respondents, 11 percent), and Reimbursement/Subsidized Education (eight respondents, five 

percent) were the second and third-most selected development programs.

On-the-Job Training, Internships, and Reimbursement/Subsidized Education were also the

highest in actual participation with 100 respondents (63 percent) identifying On-the-Job 

Training, 70 respondents (44 percent) identifying Internships, and 65 respondents (41 percent)

identifying Reimbursement/Subsidized Education (see Figure IX-8). Respondents planned to 

adopt both Internships and Detail/Rotation (five respondents each) and Certification and On-theJob Training (three respondents each) at the highest rates. At least one respondent planned to 

adopt each of the workforce development program types.

104
105
X. FINDINGS

Industry Profile

 BIS received 160 survey responses representing each of the 12 identified steps of 

the value chain, from Exploration to Manufacturing and End-Use. One hundred 

forty of the respondents worked directly with the focus elements: Dysprosium, 

Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium (DENTY).

 Most respondents were focused on Manufacturing, Distribution, EndUse/Application, and R&D; these four business lines accounted for 82 percent of 

the primary business lines selected by respondents.

 All 17 Rare Earth Elements (REEs) were used by respondents, from 115 

respondents working with Neodymium to eight respondents working with 

Promethium. On average respondents worked with approximately six different 

REEs, though half worked with four or fewer, and 24 worked with just one REE –

typically Neodymium or Cerium.

 Respondents supported a wide variety of application areas, with magnets, 

coatings, and ceramics being the most common.

 The 160 respondents reported operating 396 facilities in 38 states (288 facilities)

and 33 non-U.S locations (108 facilities) between 2010 and 2013. Respondents 

had the greatest number of facilities in California, New Jersey, and New York. 

For the 108 facilities outside of the United States, most were in China, Germany, 

the UK, France, and Canada.

106
Sales and Financial Performance

 Aggregated sales of all respondents were $76.4 billion in 2013. REE-related 

products accounted for 8 percent of this amount – $6.1 billion – up from 5.8 

percent in 2010. Sales growth in the commercial sector far outpaced that in the 

government sector.

 Forty-seven respondents reported decreased sales in 2013 from 2010, 30 of which 

experienced a sales decrease of more than 25 percent. Respondents with 

declining sales over the period were of all sizes, but nearly half were smaller 

organizations; 44.7 percent were categorized by BIS as small (less than $25 

million in average annual sales).

 BIS developed a customized financial risk metric to portray the overall financial 

condition of respondents for 2010-2013. For the full period, three respondents 

were calculated to be at high/severe risk, with another 36 at moderate/elevated 

risk. On an annual basis, financial conditions deteriorated moderately, with the 

number of respondents categorized as low/neutral risk falling from 136 to 121.

 Respondents with moderate or high financial risk were significantly more likely 

to have decreased capital and R&D expenditures from 2010 to 2013 and slightly 

more likely to have reduced their workforce size over that period.

Products and Inputs

 The 160 respondents identified a total of 601 products or product types.

 Over two-thirds of the listed products were related to the DENTY elements; the 

majority of these products were magnets and magnet powder products.

107
 Nearly half of the products or services used Neodymium, which was used at over 

twice the rate of each of the other elements of focus (Dysprosium, Ytterbium, 

Erbium, and Terbium). Most products/services involved the use of more than one 

REE.

 Thirty-eight respondents identified 120 of their products/services they believed to 

be sole source. Neodymium products were most commonly identified as sole 

source, though at similar rates to Dysprosium-containing products. Products 

containing Terbium, Ytterbium, and Erbium were less frequently identified as 

sole source products.

 Respondents identified 618 inputs from 376 unique suppliers for their products.

 Respondents listed 24 inputs with sole source suppliers and 128 inputs with single 

source suppliers. Chemicals and Magnets had the greatest number of sole source 

and single source inputs. On a percentage basis, over three-quarters of Alloy and 

Ceramic inputs were sole or single source. Two input types had no known sole or 

single source suppliers listed: Lamps/Bulbs and Phosphors.

 REEs originating in China represented roughly two-thirds of these inputs, with 

those from the United States accounting for another 22 percent. All remaining 

countries accounted for just under 10 percent of known origin REEs, with no 

single country accounting for more than eight inputs.

 Supply chain disruptions were only a minor issue for respondents in 2012 and 

2013. Seven respondents reported 16 total supply chain disruptions. Eleven of 

these disruptions were for suppliers located in China. China was the original 

source of REE for every one of the 16 inputs disrupted. The reasons given for 

108
disruptions were varied, including legal holdups, quality issues, and significant 

price increases.

Organizational Challenges and Capital Expenditure

 Respondents ranked ‘Foreign Competition’ as their biggest organizational 

challenge, with 81 respondents identifying ‘Foreign Competition as a challenge, 

and 30 noting it as their number one challenge, more than twice the number of the 

next most frequent primary challenge, ‘Material Price Volatility.’

 Respondents were particularly concerned with Chinese competition, Chinese 

material price volatility, and non-U.S. material sustainability. 

 Larger respondents tended to identify more challenges in general, listing an 

average of 10 organizational challenges, compared to seven for medium 

organizations and six for small organizations. Larger respondents were 

comparatively more concerned about ‘Material Price Volatility’ and 

‘Environmental Regulations’, while smaller respondents reported more concern 

about ‘Government Regulatory Burden’, ‘Export Controls/ITAR’, and ‘Labor 

Costs.’

 ‘Aging Equipment, Facilities, or Infrastructure’ was not a highly cited current 

challenge overall, but was the most frequently identified challenge expected to 

arise in the future.

 Respondents did not expect any major changes in the availability of any REEs in 

the near future. For every REE, the vast majority of respondents expected no 

109
change in availability and in no cases did more expect a decrease in availability

than an increase.

 Most respondents did not have REE-related capital expenditures; 35 respondents 

incurred REE-related capital expenditures, and a single respondent accounted for 

75 percent of all REE-related capital expenditures.

 Respondents were most interested in learning more about USG assistance 

programs in Business Development and in Research and Development. A 

significant percentage also expressed interest in learning more about exporting, 

either via information on Global Export Opportunities or Export Licensing. 

Innovation, Substitution, Recycling, and R&D

 Recycled products and inputs were twice as common as substituted products and 

inputs. Twenty-three percent of respondents recycled REEs or REE-related 

products, whereas eight percent of respondents substituted REEs with other REEs 

or non-REEs.

 Cost and expertise were cited as the most common constraints to recycling. Only 

one respondent believed implementing a new recycling program was feasible.

 Product Performance was the most frequently cited constraint to using recycled 

REEs or substituting for REEs.

 Among respondents not currently recycling, just four respondents believed 

implementing a recycling program would be extremely feasible, and another three

believed it would be moderately feasible, while 54 said it would be difficult or 

impossible.

110
 Sixty-one respondents reported having REE-related R&D expenditures, totaling 

$254 million in 2013 – four percent of total R&D expenditures for all 

respondents.

Support for U.S. Government Agencies

 One hundred two of the respondents provided support to at least one USG agency, 

with USG sales accounting for nearly one-third of all sales in 2013. The Armed 

Services, NASA, and the Department of Energy were the most frequently 

supported agencies.

 Forty-seven respondents were potentially dependent on the USG, based on their 

indication as such and/or their percent of sales to the USG. 

 Fifty-six percent of respondents supporting the USG provided support to more 

than one agency, and a quarter supported five or more.

 Respondents were far more vulnerable to variations in commercial demand than 

USG demand. Nearly half of all respondents indicated their commercial REE 

business was Moderately to Highly Vulnerable to variations in demand, while 

under one-quarter said the same of their USG defense-related REE business and 

11 percent said this of their USG non-defense business.

Trade

 Sixty-six respondents indicated they imported REE-related ore, mixed compound, 

inorganic purified compound, organic purified compound, mixed metal, and/or

purified metal between 2010 and 2013. Most importing respondents (46) 

111
imported from a single country, with China accounting for 28 (61 percent) of 

these single country importers.

 Respondents reported a total of $1.1 billion worth of imports of REE-related ore, 

compounds, and metals from 2010 to 2013. The top three importers accounted 

for nearly $688 million of these imports (63 percent), and the top five accounted 

for 80 percent of imports.

 More than half of the respondents operating in Distribution or R&D business lines 

imported REEs, as did 43 percent of those in Manufacturing. Every other 

business line had less than 35 percent of its participants importing REEs.

 36 respondents (23 percent) reported exports of REE-related ore, compound, or 

metal to 56 countries between 2010 and 2013. Another 36 respondents listed nonU.S. customers of their products or services.

 In no business line did more than half of the respondents export REEs or REErelated products. Only for Distribution did the proportion exporting exceed onethird.

Employment

 In 2013, the 160 respondents employed 203,896 total FTEs, 5.6 percent of whom 

performed REE-related duties. Smaller companies dedicated a larger portion of 

their workforce to REE-related jobs.

 The total number of employees decreased by two percent from 2010 to 2013, 

while the number of REE-related employees increased by 10 percent.

112
 Smaller companies tended to have a larger percentage of their workforce devoted 

to REE-related items. Small and medium sized businesses had 26 and 28 percent, 

respectively, of their employees working on REE-related items, compared to 17 

percent for large and three percent for very large businesses.

 Respondents with Exploration, Extraction, Refining, and R&D business lines 

reported the largest increases in REE-related employment, while those with 

Recycling and Substitution business lines decreased their REE-related 

workforces.

 Thirty-five respondents (22 percent) reported difficulty hiring or retaining 

employees. Nearly half the respondents participating in Exploration, Extraction, 

or Refining reporting difficulty hiring or retaining workers, compared to just 15 

percent of respondents engaged in Distribution.

 Engineering and Quality-Control/Testing were the top skills essential to 

organizations’ REE-related business lines.

 On-the-Job Training, Internships, and Reimbursement/Subsidized Education were 

the most preferred and most utilized workforce development programs.

113
APPENDIX 1: Business Line Definitions

Term Definition

Distributor/Distribution An entity that buys noncompeting products or product 

lines, warehouses them, and resells them to retailers or 

directly to the end users or customers.

End-Use

The final application for which a product or service is 

intended or to which it is placed. This end use or 

application typically occurs downstream within the 

REE value chain.

Exploration

The process of locating ore to mine. This activity is an 

involved process that frequently utilizes prospecting 

services and constitutes a preliminary (upstream) step 

in the REE value chain.

Extraction Mining or removal of materials and ores from the 

ground. There are two general types of extraction: subsurface (deep) and surface.

Financing The providing of capital for REE-related business 

activities, specifically for the exploration or extraction 

of REEs.

Manufacturer/ 

Manufacturing

An organization that uses labor and capital to convert 

raw materials and/or components into finished or semifinished goods. For the purpose of this survey, 

manufacturing includes integration and assembly.

Metallurgy The process of extracting a metal from its ore and then 

modifying that metal for use. This process produces 

alloys intended for sale or distribution.

Processing

A complex process that involves the separation and 

concentration of REEs from the host material/ore, 

reducing it to a pure metal in order to create a usable 

REE product.

Recycling/Reuse/ 

Recapture/Reclaim

Safely removing REE and REE-related inputs from 

finished goods for reuse in new products. For the 

purposes of this survey, REE recycling, reuse, 

recapture, and reclaim are used interchangeably.

114
Refining Isolating individual REEs from Rare Earth Ores that 

have already been separated from waste products.

Research and Design 

(R&D)

Experimenting with and engineering new parts, 

chemicals, or processes essential to REE-related 

products/services that fall in other steps of the REE 

value chain.

Substitution The act of replacing one REE or REE-related input 

with another REE/REE-related or non-REE related 

input.

115
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE), in coordination with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is conducting an 

industrial base survey and assessment of the supply chains associated with select critical and strategic materials required for key defense systems and platforms. This particular survey is 

focused on the Rare Earth Element (REE) industry, specifically the organizations and value chain supporting Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium-related products and 

services. 

The primary goal of this assessment is to assist the defense community in understanding the health and competitiveness of critical material suppliers, and identify specific issues and 

challenges facing the industry. Consequently, agencies will be better informed to develop targeted planning and acquisition strategies to ensure the availability of the materials supply chain 

to support critical defense missions and programs. 

RESPONSE TO THIS SURVEY IS REQUIRED BY LAW

A response to this survey is required by law (50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 2155). Failure to respond can result in a maximum fine of $10,000, imprisonment of up to one year, or both. Information 

furnished herewith is deemed confidential and will not be published or disclosed except in accordance with Section 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C App. 

Sec. 2155). Section 705 prohibits the publication or disclosure of this information unless the President determines that its withholding is contrary to the national defense. Information will 

not be shared with any non-government entity, other than in aggregate form. The information will be protected pursuant to the appropriate exemptions from disclosure under the Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA), should it be the subject of a FOIA request.

Not withstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to 

the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

BURDEN ESTIMATE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENT

Next Page

OMB Control Number: 0694-0119

Expiration Date: 31 December 2014

DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE ASSESSMENT:

Strategic Materials - Rare Earth Elements - Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 14 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information to BIS Information Collection Officer, Room 6883, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, and to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB Control No. 0694-0119), Washington, D.C. 20503.

116
I

II

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Organization Information

Capital Expenditures

Customers

Important Note:

Select dropdown menus in the survey are 

based on responses to previous sections.

Suppliers, Inventories, Inputs, and Sourcing

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

U.S. Government Outreach Programs and Certification

Financials

Employment

Research and Development

Products - Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium-related

Government and Defense and Non-Defense Participation

Challenges and Organizational Outlook

Sales

Imports and Exports of REE-related Material

Previous Page Next Page

Table of Contents

General Instructions

Definitions

117
A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Section I: General Instructions

Your organization is required to complete this survey using an Excel template, which can be downloaded from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) website: www.bis.doc.gov/REEsurvey. At your request, survey support staff will e-mail the Excel survey template 

directly to your organization. For your convenience, a PDF version of the survey is available on the BIS website to aid internal data collection. Do not 

submit the PDF version of your organization's response to BIS.

Respond to every question and carefully read the complete instructions for each section and subsection. This will help you distinguish more 

broad/aggregate REE-related questions versus more REE specific questions dealing strictly with Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and 

Ytterbium-related products and services.

Surveys that are not fully completed will be returned for completion. Use comment boxes to provide any information to supplement responses 

provided in the survey form. Make sure to record a complete answer in the cell provided, even if the cell does not appear to expand to fit all the 

information. 

Do not copy and paste responses within this survey. Survey inputs should be made manually, by typing in responses or by use of a drop-down menu. 

The use of copy and paste can corrupt the survey template. If your survey response is corrupted as a result of copy and paste responses, a new survey 

will be sent to you for immediate completion.

Previous Page Next Page

Do not disclose any classified information in this survey form. 

If information is not available from your organization's records in the form requested, you may furnish estimates.

Upon completion, review, and certification of this Excel survey, transmit the survey via e-mail attachment to: REEsurvey@bis.doc.gov. Be sure to 

retain a copy for your records.

For questions related to the overall scope of this industrial base assessment, contact: 

Brad Botwin, Director, Industrial Studies

Office of Technology Evaluation, Room 1093

U.S. Department of Commerce, BIS

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20230

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Questions related to this survey should be directed to BIS survey staff at REEsurvey@bis.doc.gov or by calling survey support staff and team lead Jason 

Bolton at (202) 482-7808. E-mail is the preferred method of contact.

118
Previous Page

Term

Alloy

Application

Applied Research

Authorizing Official

Basic Research

Capacity Utilization Rate

Captive/Internal Capability

Commercial and Government Entity 

(CAGE) Code

Component

Customer

Data Universal Numbering System 

(DUNS)

Direct Support

Distributor/Distribution

Next Page

A nine-digit numbering system that uniquely identifies an individual business. Find DUNS numbers at: 

http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform

A metal made by combining two or more metallic elements to give, for example, greater strength or resistance to corrosion.

Section II: Definitions

Definition

Executive officer of the organization or business unit or other individual who has the authority to execute this survey on behalf of 

the organization.

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code identifies companies doing or wishing to do business with the U.S. Federal 

Government. The code is used to support mechanized government systems and provides a standardized method of identifying a 

given facility at a specific location. Find CAGE codes at:

http://www.logisticsinformationservice.dla.mil/BINCS/begin_search.aspx

Any raw material, substance, piece, part, software, firmware, labeling, or assembly which is intended to be included as part of the 

finished, packaged, and labeled device.

Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need 

may be met. This activity includes work leading to the production of useful materials, devices and systems or methods, including 

design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new processes.

The percent of an organization's potential output that is actually being used in current production, given the current number of 

shifts in operation.

An entity to which an organization directly delivers the product or service that the facility produces. A customer may be another 

company or another facility owned by the same parent organization. The customer may be the end user for the item but often will 

be an intermediate link in the supply chain, adding additional value before transferring the item to yet another customer.

Product/service is provided by your organization directly to the specified customer, not through a third party (for example, prime 

contractor or distributor).

Capability retained within the organization, typically referred to as captive or internal capability.

Systematic, scientific study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of 

observable facts.

An entity that buys noncompeting products or product lines, warehouses them, and resells them to retailers or directly to the end 

users or customers.

Integration/use of a REE-related material or product into/with a final good or service. This end use or application typically occurs 

downstream within the REE value chain.

119
Electromagnetic Separation

Electro-Transport Processing

End Use

Exploration

Extraction

Facility

Federally Funded Research and 

Development Center (FFRDC)

Financing

Finished Product

Floatation Process/Froth Floatation

Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employee

Fractional Crystallization

Gravity Concentration

Harmonized Tariff Schedule

Hydrometallurgy

REE refining technique, also known as "Electron Transfer," in which electrons move from one atom or a molecule to another.

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers that receive financing from the U.S. federal government and are 

administered by universities and corporations.

The final application for which a product or service is intended or to which it is placed. This end use or application typically occurs 

downstream within the REE value chain.

The process of locating ore to mine. This activity is an involved process that frequently utilizes prospecting services and constitutes 

a preliminary (upstream) step in the REE value chain.

A process that separates components of a solution (based on their different solubilities) by evaporating the solution until the 

component that is least soluble crystalizes and can be removed in its pure form from the solvent mixture.

A milling method that separates rare earth bearing minerals from other materials within the mined ore using magnetic principals.

A process that selectively separates materials that lack an affinity for water (hydrophobic materials) from those that have an 

affinity for water (hydrophilic materials) using chemicals, compressed air, and water.

Employee who works for 40 hours in a normal work week. Convert part-time personnel to "full-time equivalents" by measuring 

their weekly work hours as a fraction of 40 hours, where two part-time employees working 20 hours per week would constitute 

one full-time equivalent.

10 digit codes used by the World Customs Organization in order to identify different products for international trade. The United 

States HTS code are used when importing goods into the United States.

A process that separates materials of different specific gravity. Through a viscous fluid, this method exploits the variance in the 

material’s gravity-driven movement. For this separation process to be successful, there has to exist a distinct difference between 

the gangue and the mineral.

A common extraction process that separates rare earth ore from mineral concentrates by using basic or acidic solutions in order to 

selectively dissolve and precipitate desired metals from a powder form that has been preprocessed. The specific method used 

depends on the metal that will be recovered, but options include selective precipitation, solvent extraction, leaching, among 

others. 

Any product, or accessory to any product, that emerges from the manufacturing process which is suitable for use or capable of 

functioning, whether or not it is packaged or labeled.

Mining or removal of materials and ores from the ground. There are two general types of extraction: sub-surface (deep) and 

surface.

A building or the minimum complex of buildings or parts of buildings in which a company operates to serve a particular function, 

producing revenue and incurring costs for the company. A facility may produce an item of tangible or intangible property or may 

perform a service. It may encompass a floor or group of floors within a building, a single building, or a group of buildings or 

structures. Often, a facility is a group of related locations at which company employees work, together constituting a profit-andloss center for the company, and it may be identified by a unique DUNS number. 

The providing of capital for REE-related business activities, specifically for the exploration or extraction of REEs.

120
Indirect Support

Inorganic Purified Compound

Ion Exchange

Laser Gain

Manufacturer/Manufacturing

Manufacturing Material

Material

Metallurgy

Milling/Beneficiation

Mixed Compounds

Mixed Metals

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) Code

Ore

Organic Purified Compounds

Precious Metals

Processing

Product/Process Development

Any material or substance used in or used to facilitate the manufacturing process, a concomitant constituent, or a byproduct 

constituent produced during the manufacturing process, which is present in or on the finished device/product.

The process of designing/conceptualizing and developing a product prior to its production for customers.

The process of extracting a metal from its ore and then modifying that metal for use. This process produces alloys intended for 

sale or distribution.

To include: Concentrate; Chloride; Carbonate; Nitrate; Inorganic Rare-Earth Compounds; Organic Rare-Earth Compounds; Fluoride; 

Hydroxide; Oxide; Sulfate; and Rare-Earth Garnet.

To include: Mischmetal; Rare Earth Silicide; Rare Earth Metal; Mixed Metal Rare Earth Alloy; Didymium; Lanthanum Silicide; and 

Cerium Silicide.

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes identify the category of product(s) or service(s) provided by your 

organization. Find NAICS codes at: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html

A classification of metals that have high economic value and/or are considered to be rare. Most commonly gold, silver, platinum, 

and palladium.

A substance, element, or component of which something is made, can be made, or used in performing a particular activity.

A naturally occurring rock and/or mineral from which valuable materials are extracted. To include: Bastnaesite; Monazite; 

Xenotime; Eudialyte; Britholyte; Ancylite; Allanite; Churchite; Limorite; Kaisonite; Fergusonite; and Apatite.

Compounds with at least one carbon-hydrogen (C-H) bond, with few exceptions. Organic Purified Compounds contain no 

impurities as a result of a refining/purification process.

Processes that remove the mineral ore from its host material. These processes include: floatation separators, electrical/magnetic 

separators, and gravity separators.

Compounds with no carbon-hydrogen (C-H) bonds. Inorganic Purified Compounds contain no impurities as a result of a 

refining/purification process.

A process in which fluid containing the wanted elements is mixed with elutriant and then poured over a resin. Molecules are 

separated on the basis of their affinity split between the resin and the elutriant. 

A complex process that involves the separation and concentration of REEs from the host material/ore, reducing it to a pure metal 

in order to create a usable REE product.

Third party (e.g., prime contractor or distributor) product/service sale and/or support to a specified party.

An organization that uses labor and capital to convert raw materials and/or components into finished or semi-finished goods. For 

the purpose of this survey, manufacturing includes integration and assembly.

Material used as an amplification medium which transfers part of its energy to the emitted electromagnetic radiation. This material 

is a laser component that increases strength of the laser.

121
Purified Metals

REE-Related

Primary/Original Source

Programs

Rare Earth Element (REE)

Recycling/Reuse/Recapture/Reclaim

REE Country of Origin

Refining

Research and Design

Service 

Single Source

Small Business

Sole Source

Solvent Extraction

STEM

Sublimation

Substitution

A category that includes element numbers 57-71 of the periodic table (Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodymium, 

Promethium, Samarium, Europium, Gadolinium, Terbium, Dysprosium, Holmium, Erbium, Thulium, and Ytterbium) as well as 

Yttrium (39) and Scandium (21).

Safely removing REE and REE-related inputs from finished goods for reuse in new products. For the purposes of this survey, REE 

recycling, reuse, recapture, and reclaim are used interchangeably.

Metals that have no impurities as a result of a refining or purification process. To include: Lanthanum; Cerium; Praseodymium; 

Neodymium; Samarium; Europium; Gadolinium; Terbium; Dysprosium; Holmium; Erbium; Thulium; Ytterbium; Lutetium; Scandium, 

Yttrium; and Radioactive isotopes.

An organization that is designated as the only accepted source for the supply of parts, components, materials, or services, even 

though other sources with equivalent technical know-how and production capability may exist.

An intangible product (contrasted to a good, which is a tangible product). Services typically cannot be stored or transported, are 

instantly perishable, and come into existence at the time they are bought and consumed.

Maintaining a direct or indirect relationship or affiliation with any of the 17 REEs, to include the support of or participation in the 

REE value chain (e.g., financing, exploration, extraction, refining, processing, metallurgy, manufacturing, distribution, 

recycling/reclaim, substitution, research and development, and end use/application).

REE Country of Origin is the country location of the mine and/or initial supplier from which the REE contained in the REE 

Compound/Material Type was originally sourced. 

REE refinement technique in which REEs are transitioned directly from their solid states to a gaseous state which removes physical 

impurities.

The act of replacing one REE or REE-related input with another REE/REE-related or non-REE related input.

Isolating individual REEs from Rare Earth Ores that have already been separated from waste products.

Experimenting with and engineering new parts, chemicals, or processes essential to REE-related products/services that fall in other 

steps of the REE value chain.

The country of origin, meaning the country of initial mineral extraction or process step.

STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

An organization that is the only source for the supply of parts, components, materials, or services. No alternative U.S. or non-U.S. 

based suppliers exist other than the current supplier.

Also known as liquid-liquid extraction, this method separates compounds by utilizing their relative solubilities within two 

immiscible liquids, usually an organic solvent and water.

Includes, but is not limited to, acquisition categories (ACATs) and/or major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs).

Refer to the Small Business Administration's definitions for size requirements and disadvantaged small business qualifications. For 

size qualifications refer to: http://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards. For disadvantaged businesses refer to: 

http://www.sba.gov/content/disadvantaged-businesses.

122
Supplier

Vacuum Casting

United States

Unalloyed Metal

Utilization Rate

Zone Refining

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

A metal in its pure form, not combined with any other substance.

An entity from which your organization obtains inputs. A supplier may be another firm with which you have a contractual 

relationship, or it may be another facility owned by the same parent organization. The inputs may be goods or services.

The "United States" or "U.S." includes the 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the island of Guam, the Trust Territories, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

REE refinement technique that utilizes electric currents to melt metal within a vacuum.

A process to remove impurities within a material through ultra-purification techniques. This process uses pure inert atmosphere or 

high vacuum in order to prevent impurities from being picked up by the metal from the gaseous atmosphere.

The fraction of an organization's potential output that is actually being used in current production, where potential output is based 

on a 7 day-a-week, 3x8-hour shift production schedule [100% utilization rate equals no downtime with full employment].

123
Next Page

A

B

E

Title Phone Number E-mail Address State

From the dropdown, indicate whether this survey response captures the operations of your whole organization or that of an individual business 

unit/division. Your organization may provide one corporate-level, consolidated response but all activities related to your Dysprosium, Erbium, 

Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium-related business lines must be reflected in the response.

Note: All data in this survey response must be reported at the same organizational level.

Section 1.a: Organization Information

C

Provide the following information for the level at which your organization is responding to this survey.

Zip Code

Company/Organization Name

Business Unit/Division Name (if applicable)

State

Street Address

Primary DUNS Code for this Level (nine-digit number with no dashes)

Phone Number

From the dropdown, indicate whether your organization is publicly traded or privately held?

State

Provide the following information for your parent company, if applicable.

Previous Page

Company/Organization Name

Website

Point of Contact regarding this survey:

D

Postal Code/Zip Code

Street Address

From the dropdown, select the description that best identifies your organization:

Country

Primary DUNS Code for Parent Company (nine-digit number with no dashes)

City

Country

City

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Comments:

F

Name

124
Next Page

Flares

Lamps/Bulbs

Industrial

Construction/Building

Engineering

Other electronics (specify)

Optics/Sensors

Magnets

Electronics

Batteries

Previous Page

Section 1.b: Organization Information

A

Identify all the market segments that your organization currently serves.

Consumer goods

Marine Technology

Energy/Power generation

Petrochemical

Research and Development

Energy

Ground Vehicles 

Aircraft

Identify all the defense-related market segments that your organization currently serves.

Missiles

Lasers

Semiconductors

Food/Agriculture

Chemical

Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, 

Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR)

Electronics

Ships

Rail

Other transportation (specify)

Transportation

Healthcare/Medical

Other industrial (specify)

Materials

Other (specify)

Launch

Satellites 

Science

Other space (specify)

Automotive

Aerospace

Telecommunication

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Other (specify)

Space

B

Space

Ships (surface and underwater)

Research and Development

Comments:

125
Next Page

Financing Processing Recycling/Reclaim

Exploration Metallurgy Substitution

Extraction Manufacturing Research and Development 

Refining Distribution End Use/Application

"Primary" (description)

"Additional" (descriptions)

Cerium Lanthanum Scandium

Dysprosium Lutetium Terbium

Erbium Neodymium Thulium

Europium Praseodymium Ytterbium

Gadolinium Promethium Yttrium 

Holmium Samarium Other (specify)

Other (description)

Alloys Fiber Nuclear

Battery Fiber Optics Phosphors

Carbon Arc Electrodes Gain/Laser Medium Polishing Powders

Catalysts (e.g., cracking) Garnet Thick Films

Cathode Ray Tubes Glass Additives Thin Films

Cement Klystrons Traveling Wave Tubes

Ceramics Lamps/Bulbs Other 1 (specify)

Coatings Light-Emitting Diodes Other 2 (specify)

Crystals (laser/non-laser) Magnets and Magnet Powders Other 3 (specify)

Dopant Metallurgical Additives Other 4 (specify)

Other 1 (description)

Other 2 (description)

Other 3 (description)

Other 4 (description)

http://hts.usitc.gov/ or 

Imports Exports

Provide the following identification codes, as applicable to your organization. (see definitions)

For information on SBA's small business size standards, see: http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/contracting/contracting-officials/eligibility-size-standards

Previous Page

Section 1.c: Organization Information

From the list of REE value chain steps, select all applicable to your organization's business lines and/or current capabilities. (see definitions)

Identify as "primary" the single step representing your largest business line, by revenue, and/or current capability.

Then, identify as "additional" any other business lines and/or current capabilities related to the REE value chain.

Lastly, briefly describe both your primary and additional business line and/or current capability selections. A

If yes, specify the type of small business (e.g., minority-owned, 8(a), etc.)

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Indicate whether your organization works with any of the identified REEs, whether in a mineral or precursor form (e.g., crystalline, powder, granules, or solution) or in an intermediate or final material application (e.g., alloy, laser gain, 

magnet, dopant, optical amplifier, etc.).

E

Comments:

Is your organization considered a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration? (see definitions)

D 

Primary Harmonized Tariff Schedule Code(s) used for REErelated Imports and Exports (10-digit)***

Indicate whether your organization's current business lines and/or current capabilities support any of the identified REE application areas.

B 

C

***Find your Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes for REE-related imports and exports at:

**Find your North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes at: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html

*Find your Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Codes at: http://www.logisticsinformationservice.dla.mil/BINCS/begin_search.aspx

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code(s)* Primary NAICS (6-digit) Code(s)**

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/schedules/b/2014/ 

126
Previous Page Next Page

City

(write-in) State Country 

Business Line/Current 

Capability

(primary if multiple) 

 Dysprosium Erbium Neodymium Terbium Ytterbium Other REE

Any operational changes 

anticipated over the next 

five years?

If yes, provide a brief explanation (writein)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Section 1.d: Organization Information

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Location Operations Outlook

Identify all of your organization's U.S. and non-U.S. facilities with REE-related operations.

Provide the facility's name, location, and primary business line and/or current capability. Then, document the relevant REEs corresponding to each facility's operations. 

Lastly, if applicable, specify any changes in REE-related operations that may impact the facility over the next five years.

Comments:

Facility Name

(write-in)

127
Next Page

Product/Service Name

(write-in) Product or Service Type of Product/Service Sole Source

 Dysprosium Erbium Neodymium Terbium Ytterbium Other REE

REE Ore/Compound/

Material Type

(primary if multiple)

REE Refinement/

Production Method

(primary if multiple)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Previous Page

Comments:

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium-related Product/Service

Describe all your organization's products and services related to Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium. These include finished items sold to external customers and semi-finished materials/inputs/precursors produced internally 

for sale and/or related production purposes.

For example, if your organization produces laser diodes but also the Erbium- or Ytterbium-doped laser gain crystal host material used for laser diode manufacture, both the laser diode and the laser media need be reported.

For each product/service you provide, record the Product/Service Name, whether a Product or Service, Type of Product/Service, and if you are a Sole Source. (see definitions)

Then, identify the relevant REE within each reported Product/Service, the REE Ore/Compound/Material Type (Ore, Mixed Compound, Inorganic Purified Compound, Organic Purified Compound, Purified Metal, Unknown, etc.) and the REE 

Refinement/Production Method, if applicable. (see definitions)

 

Note: If more than 30 REE-related products/services are offered by your organization, provide either a representative sample or the 30 most significant by revenue contribution. 

Section 2.a: Products and Services Related to Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium

128
Next Page

Product/Service Name

Populated from 2.A Response

Type of Product/Service

Populated from 2.A Response

Sector End Use

(primary if multiple)

Market Segment Served

(primary if multiple)

Menu Populated from 1.B.a 

Material Application

(primary if multiple)

Menu Populated from 1.C.c 

End Use/Application Description

(write-in)

 Number of Units

(write-in)

 in Kilograms

(write-in)

 Number of Units

(write-in)

In Kilograms

(write-in)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Previous Page

Describe all your organization's products and services related to Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium by both End Use and Production and/or Distribution. 

For each product/service indicate Sector End Use, Market Segment Served, Material Application, and provide a written description of End Use/Application.

 

Lastly, if applicable, provide the Average Annual and Maximum Annual Product Production and/or Distribution in both Number of Units and Kilograms. If figures are typically maintained in either Number of Units or Kilograms, and not both, either measurement is acceptable.

Note: Maximum Annual Production and/or Distribution assumes current capacity with no additional investments in property, plant, or equipment (PP&E) nor significant increases in personnel.

Section 2.b: Products and Services Related to Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium continued

Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium-Related Product/Service Product Production and/or Distribution

Average Annual, since 2012 Maximum Annual End Use of Product/Service

Comments:

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

129
Previous Page Next Page

External Supplier Name Input Type

REE Ore/Compound/

Material Type

(primary if multiple)

Input Description 

(write-in)

Product/Service 1 

Menu Populated from 2.A

Product/Service 2 

Menu Populated from 2.A

Product/Service 3 

Menu Populated from 2.A

Product/Service 4 

Menu Populated from 2.A

Product/Service 5 

Menu Populated from 2.A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Comments:

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Describe your organization's suppliers and inputs supporting your Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium-related business lines. Data should correspond to supplier procurements made since 2012.

Record the External Supplier's Name, Input Type, REE Ore/Compound/Material Type (Ore, Mixed Compound, Inorganic Purified Compound, Organic Purified Compound, Purified Metal, Unknown, etc.), and Input Description.

Then, provide up to five Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and/or Ytterbium-related Products or Services associated with the reported input.

Note: Do not report internal, "same name" suppliers. 

Note: If an individual supplier provides multiple inputs and/or supports more than five products or services, record the supplier name and corresponding information in an additional line.

Note: If more than 20 suppliers are used by your organization to support said products or services, provide either a representative sample or the 20 most significant by cost or value add. 

Section 3.a: Suppliers for Business Lines Related to Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium

Supplier Name and Input Information Product/Service Related to Input

130
Previous Page Next Page

External Supplier Name Input Type

REE Ore/Compound/

Material Type

Input Description 

(write-in) Supplier State Supplier Country REE Country of Origin(primary if multiple) Supplier Type Single/Sole Source Alternative Supplier

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Section 3.b: Suppliers for Business Lines Related to Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium continued

Describe your organization's suppliers and inputs supporting your Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium-related business lines. Data should correspond to supplier procurements made since 2012.

Record the supplier's State and Country of location, REE Country of Origin, if known, and Supplier Type. (see definitions)

Then, indicate whether the supplier is a Single/Sole Source and if an Alternative Supplier is available.

Note: REE Country of Origin is the country location of the mine and/or initial supplier from which the REE contained in the REE Compound/Material Type was originally sourced. Leave blank if unknown.

Supplier Name and Input Information

Populated from 3.A Response Additional Supplier Information

Comments:

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

131
Previous Page Next Page

Input Type

REE Ore/Compound/

Material Type Input Description

Number of Weeks of Inventory 

Currently Maintained

Number of Weeks Current 

Inventory would Last if Operating 

at 100% Capacity Utilization Rate

Number of Weeks Required to 

Return Inventory to Current Levels 

if Suddenly Exhausted

Supply Disruption?

(since 2012)

If yes, provide a brief description.

(write-in)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Comments:

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Section 3.c: Inventory of Inputs Supporting Business Lines Related to Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium

Record the inventories of inputs corresponding to your organization's Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium-related business lines.

By Input Type and/or REE Compound/Material Type currently maintained in inventory, record the Number of Weeks of Inventory Currently Maintained, Number of Weeks Current Inventory would Last if Operating at 100% Capacity Utilization Rate, and Number of Weeks Required to Return Inventory to Current Levels if 

Suddenly Exhausted.

Then, indicate whether or not a Supply Disruption (since 2012) has occurred for each reported input.

Note: The Number of Weeks Required to Return Inventory to Current Levels if Suddenly Exhausted would occur at normal market prices and without preferential access to material.

Inventory Levels (in weeks) Supply Disruption Input Information

Populated from 3.A

132
Next Page

A

Supports REE or Non-REERelated Business Lines? 

Dysprosium ErbiumNeodymium Terbium Ytterbium Other REE

Concerned about Material's 

Availability to Support 

Ongoing Operations?

Supply Disruption?

(since 2012) Type 

Location

(country) 

Ceramics (specify)

Composites (specify)

Copper

Lanthanides (specify)

Niobium

Steel - Alloys (specify)

Steel - Carbon (specify)

Steel - Stainless (specify)

Steel - Tool (specify)

Vanadium

Other 1 (specify)

Other 2 (specify)

Other 3 (specify)

C

Magnesium

Lithium

Palladium

Nickel

Section 3.d: Inputs and Sourcing of Materials

Material

Direct/Immediate Source

Lead

Cobalt

Iron

Primary/Original Source

(country)

If yes, indicate whether or not each critical material supports your REE or Non-REE-Related business lines, in addition to your specific Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium and/or Other REE-related business lines.

Then, for each material indicate if you are Concerned about Material's Availability to Support Ongoing Operations and whether or not Supply Disruption (since 2012) has occurred.

Finally, identify both the Type and Location of the material's Direct/Immediate Source while also declaring the Primary/Original Source. (see definitions)

Aluminum

Previous Page

Gallium

Gold

Operational Use

Does your organization utilize any of the identified materials in support of its Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and/or Ytterbium-related business lines? If no, proceed to Section 4.

B

Tin

Sourcing Problems

Zinc

Tantalum

Zirconium

Comments:

Molybdenum

Rare Earth Elements (REE)

Silicon

Silver

Platinum

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Tungsten

Titanium

Describe your concerns over the availability of such critical materials as well as any steps your organization has recently taken to 

minimize future disruptions and/or risks to supply. 

133
Next Page

REE-related Non-REE-related

U.S. Government defense demand?

U.S. Government non-defense demand?

Non-government demand?

Explanation:

Explanation:

Explanation:

Impact of decreased U.S. Government demand for your 

organization's REE-related business lines

Impact of increased U.S. Government demand for your 

organization's REE-related business lines

D

Is your organization capable of simultaneously supporting DOD and commercial requirements? Explain your response.

Identify the impacts that a sudden decrease or increase in U.S. Government demand, whether direct or indirect, for your REE-related business lines would have on your organization.

Business Operation

Number of REE-related product/service lines

 Capital expenditures

Number of key REE-related production machinery/equipment

Number of personnel with key skills

From 2010-2014, has your organization received a rated order (DO or DX) from a U.S. Government agency and/or affiliated contractor? A rated order 

means a prime contract, a subcontract, or a purchase order in support of an approved program issued in accordance with the provisions of the Defense 

Priorities and Allocation System (DPAS) regulations (15 CFR part 700). 

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Comments:

C

Sales-based revenue

Research and Development expenditures

Pursuit of U.S.-located customers

Pursuit of U.S. Government contracts

Product/service development cost

Organization viability or solvency

Pursuit of non-U.S. customers

Product/service price

Other 2 (specify)

Other 1 (specify)

Previous Page

If your organization's REE-related business lines support Department of Defense (DOD) programs, whether directly or indirectly, are those business lines 

integrated or separate from your commercial-based operations? Explain your response. 

Section 4.a: U.S. Government Defense and Non-Defense Participation

If there is a sudden or steep decline in U.S. Government demand for REE-related products and/or services, can your organization readily convert its 

relevant government business lines to commercial ones?

Pursuit of REE-related operations in non-U.S. locations

B

Does your organization consider itself dependent upon U.S. Government programs for its continued viability? Explain your response.

Describe your organization's dependency on U.S. Government defense and non-defense demand for the sustainment of its REE-related products and services, to include Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and 

Ytterbium-related products and services. 

Type of Business Line How vulnerable are your REE-related business lines 

to variability in: Comments

A

Estimate the percentage of your current U.S. Government REE-related products and/or services that are readily compatible with non-government 

business lines.

134
Next Page

A

Other Agency 1

Other Agency 2

Agency Name

Menu Populated from 4.b.B

Product/Service 1 

Menu Populated from 2.A

Product/Service 2 

Menu Populated from 2.A

Product/Service 3 

Menu Populated from 2.A

Product/Service 4 

Menu Populated from 2.A

Product/Service 5 

Menu Populated from 2.A

Product/Service 6 

Menu Populated from 2.A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

C

Identify the specific U.S. Government Programs/Systems your organization has supported since 2010 with its Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and/or Ytterbium-related business lines.

Record both the Government Program/System Name and the corresponding Agency Name. Make sure to spell out all acronyms, when applicable.

Then, provide up to six products/services affiliated with your Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and/or Ytterbium-related business lines.

Note: If unsure of the specific U.S. Government Programs/System Name or Agency Name, provide as much information as possible. 

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Since 2010, has your organization directly or indirectly supported any U.S. Government agencies or programs in any capacity? If directly, indirectly, or both, complete subsections B and C. If no, proceed to Section 5. 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA)

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Comments:

U.S. Army

U.S. Marine Corps

Missile Defense Agency (MDA)

U.S. Air Force

U.S. Navy 

Government Program/System Name

(write-in)

Previous Page

Section 4.b: U.S. Government Defense and Non-Defense Participation

B

From the list of U.S. Government agencies, select those your organization has supported since 2010. If you support an additional agency, identify said agency in "Other."

U.S. Intelligence

Community (e.g., CIA, NGA, NRO, NSA) Department of Energy (DOE)

135
Next Page

Impact? Rank Top 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30 Other (specify)

Availability of capital

Comments:

Quality of inputs

Research and development costs

Taxes

Proximity to suppliers

Reduction in U.S. government demand

Qualifications/certifications

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

U.S. material availability 

U.S. supplier reliability 

Worker/skills retention

Material price volatility

New production methods

Non-U.S. material availability 

Pension costs

Proximity to customers

Non-U.S. supplier reliability

Patent infringement

REE design-out/substitution

Illegal rare earth mining/smuggling

Labor availability

Labor costs

Government regulatory burden

Foreign competition

Healthcare

Previous Page

Section 5.a: Challenges and Organizational Outlook - Issues

A

Identify the issues impacting your organization's REE-related business lines, indicating whether currently, in the future, or both, to include its Dysprosium, 

Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium-related business lines.

Then, rank the top five issues (1 = Most Important; 5 = Least Important) by writing in numbers 1-5 next to only the leading five issues. Each number 

should be recorded only once and placed next to a "Current," "Future," or "Both" response.

Lastly, provide an explanation of your top five issues. 

Type of Issue Explanation

Aging equipment, facilities, or infrastructure

Domestic competition

Environmental regulations/remediation

Export controls/ITAR

Government purchasing volatility 

136
Next Page

i

ii

iii

i

ii

iii

2

3

1 Explanation:

2 Explanation:

3 Explanation:

4 Explanation:

5 Explanation:

6 Explanation:

7 Explanation:

Cerium Lanthanum Scandium

Dysprosium Lutetium Terbium

Erbium Neodymium Thulium

Europium Praseodymium Ytterbium

Gadolinium Promethium Yttrium

Holmium Samarium Other

Other (description)

Actions Planned for Next Five Years

Comments:

Previous Page

Section 5.b: Challenges and Organizational Outlook - Competitiveness

Identify key actions your organization has taken and is planning to take to improve its overall competitiveness. Explain your selections.

Actions Taken Since 2010

1

Action Explanation

A

2

Action 

Describe your organization's competitiveness and any challenges to the sustainment of its REE-related business lines, to include its Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and/or Ytterbium-related business lines.

Explanation:

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

If both domestic and non-U.S. aggregate demand for REEs and REE-related products/services increases, will your organization benefit? Explain your response.

1

Do you anticipate that an increase in the supply or ready availability of U.S. mined REEs will make your organization more competitive in the marketplace? Explain your 

response.

Does your organization face any supply chain constraints related to the procurement of REEs or REE-related product/services?

If yes, do you foresee such supply chain constraints affecting your organization's future operations? Explain your responses.

B

Explanation:

Explanation:

Imposition of more stringent production controls on China's REErelated mining practices:

How would the following scenarios affect the sustainment of your organization's REE-related business lines? Rank 1 -5 the impact of each scenario on your ability to maintain your REE-related business lines (1 = 

Negative Long-Term Impact; 5 = Positive Long-Term Impact). Explain your selections.

Elimination/softening by China of its export quota restrictions 

regarding REEs and REE-related products:

D

Rules/regulations adopted by the U.S. Government requiring 

industry's recycling of REEs and REE-related products:

Increase by the U.S. Government of both type and volume of REEs 

and REE-related products identified for stockpiling:

C

Prosecution of companies distributing and/or using illegally 

produced REE-related materials:

For application in your organization's current operations, indicate whether you expect an Increase, Decrease, or No Change in the availability of each REE in the next 12-24 months.

Explanation

Increase in both U.S. imports and overall supply of REEs and REErelated products:

Decrease in the number of U.S. located suppliers for REEs and REErelated products:

137
Next Page

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Has (or will) the recycling of REEs or REE-related products improve your organization's overall competiveness, e.g., improved product quality or performance, increased 

margins, reduced lead times, etc.? Explain your response.

Explanation:

C

Comments:

Previous Page

Section 5.c: Challenges and Organizational Outlook - Recycling

Recycling and Use of Recycled Rare Earth Elements

The safe removal of REE and REE-related inputs from finished goods for reuse in new products, also known as recycling, is a process of increasing relevance in the REE supply chain.

For the purposes of this survey, "recycle" includes reuse, recapture, and reclaim.

Respond to the following question concerning your organization's REE-related recycling practices.

A

If no, indicate the feasibility of recycling REEs or REE-related products. Rank feasibility 1-5, where 1 = Feasible/Evident; 5 = Impossible/Not Applicable.

Rare Earth Element Recycling Processes

B

Does your organization use recycled REEs or REE-related products within your operations?

Describe the REE-related recycling processes adopted by your organization.

By volume of recycled material, what is the primary recycling technique or process adopted (or planned) by your organization for recycling REEs or REE-related products? 

Explain your selection.

Explanation:

If no, identify the primary constraint prohibiting your organization's use of recycled REEs or REE-related products. Explain your selection.

If no, indicate the feasibility of using recycled REEs or REE-related products in your current business lines. Rank feasibility 1-5, where 1 = Feasible/Evident; 5 = 

Impossible/Not Applicable.

Use of Recycled Rare Earth Elements

Does your organization recycle REEs or REE-related products?

If no, does your organization plan to recycle REEs or REE-related products in the next 5 years?

Explanation:

Explanation:

If no, identify the primary constraint prohibiting your organization's recycling of REEs or REE-related products. Explain your selection.

If no, does your organization plan to use recycled REEs or REE-related products in the next 5 years?

138
Next Page

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

Previous Page

Section 5.d: Challenges and Organizational Outlook - Substitution

Substitution of Rare Earth Elements

The act of replacing a REE or REE-related input with another input, also known as substitution, is a process of increasing relevance in the REE supply chain.

Respond to the following questions concerning REE substitution practices and their application to your organization's REE-related business lines, to include its Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and/or 

Ytterbium-related business lines.

A

If no, does your organization plan to use products containing REE substitutes in the next 5 years?

If no, identify the primary constraint prohibiting your organization's use of products containing REE substitutes. Explain your selection.

Explanation:

Does your organization substitute REEs with different REEs or non-REE materials?

If no, does your organization plan to substitute REEs with different REEs or non-REE materials in the next 5 years?

Has (or will) the substitution of REEs improve your organization's overall competiveness, e.g., improved product quality or performance, increased margins, reduced 

lead times, etc.? Explain your response.

If no, identify the primary constraint prohibiting your organization's substitution of REEs with different REEs or non-REE materials. Explain your selection.

Explanation:

Explanation:

If no, indicate the feasibility of REE substitution at your organization. Rank feasibility 1-5, where 1 = Feasible/Evident; 5 = Impossible/Not Applicable.

Use of REE Substitutes/Related Products

B

Does your organization use products containing REE substitutes?

If no, indicate the feasibility of using REE substitute or products containing REE substitutes in your current business lines. Rank feasibility 1-5, where 1 = 

Feasible/Evident; 5 = Impossible/Not Applicable.

Comments:

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Rare Earth Element Substitution Processes

C

Describe the REE-related substitution processes adopted by your organization.

By volume of material or product subject to REE substitution, what is the primary substitution technique or process used (or planned) by your organization? Explain 

your selection.

Explanation:

139
Next Page

A

 Dysprosium Erbium Neodymium Terbium Ytterbium Other REE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

Explanation:

Recorded data should reflect only United States-based imports of Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and/or Other REE-related Ore, Mixed Compound, Inorganic Purified Compound, Organic Purified Compound, Mixed Metal, and/or Purified 

Metal transacted from 2010 through 2013.

First, select the countries from which your organization has imported Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and/or Other REE-related material.

Then, identify the REE Ore/Compound/Material Type imported from each Country. If multiple Ores/Compounds/Material Types are imported from a single country, record all corresponding information in an additional line.

Lastly, by Country and corresponding REE Ore/Compound/Material Type, record the Total Quantity Imported between 2010-2013, Quantity Unit of Measure, and Total Value Imported (in USD Thousands) between 2010-2013. 

Does your organization anticipate increasing its imports of Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium and/or Other REE-related material over the next 5 years?

Total Value Imported

in 2010-2013

in $ Thousands

$12,000.00 = survey input of $12

Country

Total Kilograms Imported

in 2010-2013

(auto-calculated)

C

Since 2010, has your organization imported into the United States any Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and/or Other REE-related Ore, Mixed Compound, Inorganic Purified Compound, Organic Purified 

Compound, Mixed Metal, and/or Purified Metal? (see definitions)

If no, continue to Section 6.b. If yes, complete sub-sections B and C.

Total Quantity Imported

in 2010-2013

(write-in)

Quantity Unit of Measure:

Ounces, Pounds, Tons, Grams, 

Kilograms, or Metric Tons

REE Imported

Explain current and/or future challenges your organization faces when importing Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium and/or Other REE-related material.

REE Ore/Compound/

Material Type

Previous Page

Section 6.a: Imports of Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and Other REE-related Material

B

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Comments:

If yes, does your organization anticipate any challenges to increasing its imports of Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium and/or Other REE-related material?

3

140
Next Page

A

 Dysprosium Erbium Neodymium Terbium Ytterbium Other REE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

Explanation:

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

C

Does your organization anticipate increasing its exports of Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium and/or Other REE-related material over the next 5 years?

Comments:

Quantity Unit of Measure:

Ounces, Pounds, Tons, Grams, 

Kilograms, or Metric Tons

3

If yes, does your organization anticipate any challenges to increasing its exports of Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium and/or Other REE-related material?

Explain current and/or future challenges your organization faces when exporting Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium and/or Other REE-related material.

REE Ore/Compound/

Material Type

Previous Page

Section 6.b: Exports of Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and Other REE-related Material

Since 2010, has your organization exported from the United States any Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and/or Other REE-related Ore, Mixed Compound, Inorganic Purified Compound, Organic 

Purified Compound, Mixed Metal, and/or Purified Metal? (see definitions)

If no, continue to Section 7. If yes, complete sub-sections B and C.

B

Recorded data should reflect only United States-based exports of Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and/or Other REE-related Ore, Mixed Compound, Inorganic Purified Compound, Organic Purified Compound, Mixed Metal, and/or 

Purified Metal transacted from 2010 through 2013.

First, select the countries in receipt of your organization's exports of Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and/or Other REE-related material.

Then, identify the REE Ore/Compound/Material Type exported to each Country. If multiple Ores/Compounds/Material Types are exported to a single country, record all corresponding information in an additional line. 

Lastly, by Country and corresponding REE Ore/Compound/Material Type, record the Total Quantity Exported between 2010-2013, Quantity Unit of Measure, and Total Value Exported (in USD Thousands) between 2010-2013.

REE Exported

Total Kilograms Exported

in 2010-2013

(auto-calculated)

Total Value Exported

in 2010-2013

in $ Thousands

$12,000.00 = survey input of $12

Total Quantity Exported

in 2010-2013

(write-in)

Country

141
Previous Page Next Page

U.S. Non-U.S. U.S. Non-U.S. U.S. Non-U.S. U.S. Non-U.S. U.S. Non-U.S.

A

1

2

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

B

1

2

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

i

ii

0% 0% 0% 0%

1

2

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Total REE-related Sales, all Customers

Comments:

2011 2012 2013 2014

C

Does your organization consider itself dependent on its REE-related sales for its ongoing viability? Explain your response.

Explanation:

Indicate the degree of compatibility between your REE and non-REE business lines and/or operations by estimating the percentage of your current REE-related business lines/operations that can be readily converted to non-REE-related 

business lines/operations. Explain your response.

Explanation:

Section 7: Sales

Provide your U.S.-based operation's 2010-2013 U.S. and Non-U.S. sales information.

Record your Total U.S. and Non-U.S. Sales, all Customers, and a percentage breakout by both Non-Government and Government Sales in lines 1 and 2 (should sum to 100%).

Then, record your Total U.S. and Non-U.S. REE-related Sales, all Customers, to include Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and Other REE-related Sales, and a percentage breakout by REE-related Non-Government and REE-related Government Sales in lines 1 and 2 (should sum to 

100%).

Lastly, provide a percentage breakout of your U.S. Government REE-related Government Sales by both U.S. Government Defense and Non-Defense Sales in lines i and ii (should sum to 100%). 

For 2014, estimate the percentage change from 2013 in Total U.S. and Non-U.S. Sales, Total U.S. and Non-U.S. REE-related Sales, and U.S. Government REE-related Defense and Non-Defense Sales.

*Government Sales include both direct and indirect sales to government customers (including sales to prime contractors with government program application). All sales with government end uses should be reported as Government Sales.

Note: Ensure your "Source of Sales Data" declaration is consistent with your response in Section 1.a. This means that if you declared the survey response to be a Business Unit/Division-level response in Section 1.a then this section should contain Business Unit/Division-level data.

Source of Sales Data:

Reporting Schedule:

"U.S." means U.S. domestic sales;

"Non-U.S." means export sales from U.S. locations

Record in $ Thousands, e.g. $12,000.00 = survey input of $12 Record as Percent Change from 2013

2010

Total Non-Government Sales [as a % of line A]

*Total Government Sales [as a % of line A]

Total Sales, all Customers

*REE-related U.S. Government Defense Sales 

[as a % of line B.2]

*REE-related U.S. Government, Non-Defense Sales 

[as a % of line B.2]

Lines 1 and 2 must sum to 100%

*REE-related Government Sales [as a % of line B]

REE-related Non-Government Sales [as a % of line B]

Lines 1 and 2 must sum to 100%

Lines i and ii must sum to 100%

142
Next Page

Sales (USD)

Type of Customer 

Market Segment of Customer

(primary if multiple)

Menu Populated from 1.B.a 

REE Product/Service 1 

Menu Populated from 2.A 

REE Product/Service 2 

Menu Populated from 2.A

REE Product/Service 3 

Menu Populated from 2.A

City 

(write-in) State Country

Average Annual Sales

in $ Thousands

$12,000.00 = survey input of $12 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Comments:

A

Direct Customer Name

(write-in)

Customer Profile Product/Service Customer Location

Previous Page

Section 8: Customers

Identify your organization's leading direct customers for Dysprosium, Erbium, Neodymium, Terbium, and Ytterbium-related business lines based on average annual sales in 2010-2013.

Provide the Direct Customer's Name, indicating both the Type of Customer and corresponding Market Segment of Customer.

Then, record the leading Products/Services sold and the Customer's Location (City, State, Country).

Lastly, for each customer estimate the Average Annual Total Sales (in U.S. dollar thousands) from 2010-2013.

143
Next Page

2010 2011 2012 2013

A

B

C

D

E

2010 2011 2012 2013

A

B Inventories

C Total Current Assets

D

E Total Current Liabilities

F

G

H

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Previous Page

Section 9: Financials

Report line items from your organization's financial statements for years 2010-2013.

Indicate whether the reported income statement and balance sheet line items are Business Unit/Division or Corporate/Whole Organization financials. 

Note: Ensure your "Source of Sales Data" declaration is consistent with your response in Section 1.a. This means that if you declared the survey response to be a 

Business Unit/Division-level response in Section 1.a then this section should contain Business Unit/Division-level data.

Source of Financial Line Items:

Record in $ Thousands, e.g. $12,000.00 = survey input of $12 Balance Sheet (Select Line Items)

Total Assets

Total Liabilities

Reporting Schedule:

Income Statement (Select Line Items) Record in $ Thousands, e.g. $12,000.00 = survey input of $12

Net Sales (and other revenue)

Cost of Goods Sold

* Total Owner's Equity (line H in the Balance Sheet) should equal Total Assets less Total Liabilities 

Comments:

Cash

Retained Earnings

Total Operating Income (Loss)

Earnings Before Interest and Taxes

Net Income

Total Owner's Equity*

144
Next Page

2010 2011 2012 2013

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Other (specify)

10 Other (specify)

0% 0% 0% 0%

B

1

2

3

4

5

Explanation:

Explanation:

Apprenticeship Internship

Certification On-The-Job 

Training

Detail/Rotation Reimbursement/

Subsidized

Fellowship Specialized

Coursework

Other (specify)

1

2

3

4

5

C

Does your organization currently have difficulty hiring or retaining employees?

Comments:

Indicate if your organization participates in/sponsors any of the identified 

workforce development programs. 3

Type of Skill or Competency

If yes, indicate the primary reason(s) why you currently have difficulty hiring or retaining employees, particularly employees affiliated with your REE-related business 

lines. Explain each selection. 

D

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Does your organization offer apprenticeship programs with academic institutions (e.g., community colleges, local 

trade schools, universities, etc.)? Explain your response.

Indicate the workforce development program preferred by your organization. Explain your selection.

1

2

Explanation

E

Identify any unique skills and/or competencies that are essential to maintaining your organization's REE-related business lines. Explain each selection.

Engineers, Scientists, and R&D Staff [as a % of a]

Administrative, Management, and Legal Staff [as a % of a]

A

Facility & Maintenance Staff [as a % of a]

Information Technology Professionals [as a % of a]

Marketing and Sales [as a % of a]

Lines 2 through 10 must total 100%

Production Line Workers [as a % of a]

Testing Operators, Quality Control, and Support Technicians

Professional Occupations

Previous Page

Section 10: Employment

Record the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in your organization's U.S.-based operations for the 2010-2013 period.

Then, estimate the percentage of these employees that perform the professional occupations indicated.

Do not double count personnel who may perform cross-operational roles. Estimates are encouraged. 

Note: Ensure your "Source of Workforce Data" declaration is consistent with your response in Section 1.a. This means that if you declared the survey response to be a 

Business Unit/Division-level response in Section 1.a then this section should contain Business Unit/Division-level data.

Source of Workforce Data:

Reporting Schedule:

Explanation

Estimate the percentage of your organization's Total FTEs that work on REErelated business lines [as a % of line A.1]:

Primary Reason (select)

Total Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employees (write-in)

145
Next Page

2010 2011 2012 2013

A

1

2

3

0% 0% 0% 0%

4

5

2010 2011 2012 2013

B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 Other (specify)

0% 0% 0% 0%

Recycling Substitution

F

Record in $ Thousands, e.g. $12,000.00 = survey input of $12

Percent of Total R&D Expenditures relating to REE-related business lines

Previous Page

Section 11: Research and Development

Record your organization's total Research and Development (R&D) Expenditures and Funding Sources for the years 2010 to 2013.

Estimate the percentage of total R&D expenditures related to both your REE-related and Defense business lines.

Note: Ensure your "Source of R&D Data" declaration is consistent with your response in Section 1.a. This means that if you declared the survey response to be a Business Unit/Divisionlevel response in Section 1.a then this section should contain Business Unit/Division-level data. 

Note: R&D annual expenditure totals should match those your organization typically provides in its annual income statement.

Source of R&D Data:

R&D Reporting Schedule:

Total Federal Government [as a % of B]

Total State and Local Government [as a % of B]

Universities--Public and Private [as a % of B]

R&D Expenditures

Percent of Total R&D Expenditures relating to Defense business lines

Basic Research [as a % of a]

Lines 1 through 3 must total 100%

Total R&D Expenditures (write-in)

Applied Research [as a % of a]

Product/Process Development [as a % of a]

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Compatibility and Constraints to REE-related R&D

Do China quotas/trade restrictions inhibit your ability to perform REE-related R&D?

Comments:

D

Does the cost of REEs and/or related ores, compounds, material types, inhibit your ability to perform REE-related R&D?

Does limited availability of REEs and/or related ores, compounds, material types, inhibit your ability to perform REE-related R&D?

Have recent efforts to "design or engineer out" REEs from related product and application areas reduced or increased your incentive to 

invest in REE-related R&D?

C

Does your organization plan on increasing future R&D activities related to REE recycling and substitution?

Provide a brief description of your organization's R&D activities.

REE-related R&D for Recycling/Substitution

E 

Does your organization perform any R&D activities related to REE recycling and substitution?

If yes, estimate the proportion of your overall R&D expenditures related to REE recycling and substitution.

U.S. Industry, Venture Capital, Non-Profit [as a % of B]

Non-U.S. investors [as a % of B]

Lines 1 through 7 must sum to 100%

Does defense-related R&D shape the development of your commercial product lines?

If yes, estimate the degree of compatibility between your defense-related R&D and your commercial product lines, i.e., the percentage 

of your defense-related R&D, any given year, that supports your commercial business.

R&D Funding Sources

Record in $ Thousands, e.g. $12,000.00 = survey input of $12

Total R&D Funding Sources (write-in)

Internal/Self Funded/IRAD [as a % of B]

146
Next Page

2010 2011 2012 2013*

A

1

2

3

4

Other (specify)

[as a % of A]

5

Other (specify)

[as a % of A]

0% 0% 0% 0%

6

Availability Interoperability Operating Costs

Environmental Regulations, 

Compliance Lead Time Purchase Price

Expertise/Know-how Licensing/Permits Return On Investment

Explanation:

Bioleaching Bacteria Crushers Flotation Separation 

Tanks/Jameson Cells

Centrifugal Contractors Electromagnets Rock-breakers

Chemicals used in Flotation 

Separation

Falcon/Gravity Concentrators Saponification Equipment

Other (specify)

Explanation:

1

2

3

4

5

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Comments:

D

Previous Page

Section 12: Capital Expenditures

Record your organization's capital expenditures corresponding to the select categories.

Note: Ensure your "Source of Capital Expenditure Data" declaration is consistent with your response in Section 1.a. This means that if you declared the survey response to be a Business Unit/Division-level response in Section 

1.a then this section should contain Business Unit/Division-level data.

Source of Capital Expenditure Data:

Total Capital Expenditures

Capital Expenditure Reporting Schedule:

Identify and describe any unique or critical equipment, infrastructure, and/or facilities owned and/or operated by your organization in support of its REE-related business lines.

Does your organization own any of the following pieces of machinery and equipment?

2

If either yes or no, indicate the status of each machinery and equipment type. Explain your response.

Land, Buildings, and Leasehold Improvements

[as a % of A]

B

C

Since 2010, have your organization's capital expenditures been adversely impacted by reductions in U.S. Government defense spending? Do you anticipate them to be impacted in 

the future? Explain your response.

Lines 1 through 5 must total 100%

1

Type of Equipment, Infrastructure, or Facility

REE-related Capital Expenditures

[as a % of A]

Description (write-in)

Explanation:

Barriers to entry or expansion in REE-related fields can be high, particularly in the early, capital-intensive steps of the REE value chain. 

Describe any obstacles to the future procurement by your organization of new machinery, technology, and/or facilities necessary for expanding its REE-related business lines. Such investments might include the 

acquisition of equipment for the extraction, refinement, processing, manufacture, and/or recycling of REE-related material. Explain your response. 

Capital Expenditure Category Record in $ Thousands, e.g. $12,000.00 = survey input of $12

Machinery, Equipment, and Vehicles

[as a % of A]

IT, Computers, Software

[as a % of A]

147
Next Page

Business development (joint ventures, new markets, etc.)

Energy and environmentally conscious manufacturing

Export licensing (ITAR/EAR)

Financing (access to capital, loans, etc.)

Global export opportunities

Government procurement guidelines and e-commerce Country Commercial Guides (specify most 

relevant country in box)

Manufacturing technology development (including acquiring, licensing, and/or 

commercializing federally developed technologies) Other (specify)

Marketing assessment skills Other (specify)

Training Opportunities

A

Previous Page

Section 13.a: U.S. Government Outreach

Comments:

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

There are many federal and state government programs and services available to assist your organization to better compete in the global marketplace.

If you would like more information regarding these U.S. Government programs, select the specific areas of interest below.

The Commerce Department will follow-up with your organization regarding your selections.

Patents and trademarks

Product/service development (including manufacturing standards, processes, and practices)

R&D programs

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) 

contracts

148
Previous Page Table of Contents

Organization Name:

Organization's Internet Address:

Name of Authorizing Official:

Title of Authorizing Official:

E-mail Address:

Phone Number and Extension:

Date Certified:

How many hours did it take to complete this survey?

Section 13.b: Certification

The undersigned certifies that the information herein supplied in response to this questionnaire is complete and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. It is a 

criminal offense to willfully make a false statement or representation to any department or agency of the United States Government as to any matter within its 

jurisdiction (18 U.S.C.A. 1001 (1984 & SUPP. 1197)).

In the box below, provide any additional comments or any other information you wish to include regarding this survey assessment.

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

149
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION (OTE)

PUBLICATIONS LIST

October 2016

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of Technology Evaluation is the focal point within the Department for conducting asse

industries and technologies. The studies are based on detailed industry‐specific surveys used to collect information from U.S. com

behalf of the U.S. Congress, the military services, industry associations, or other interested parties.

PUBLICATION TITLE 

U.S. Semiconductor Industry Assessment – Summer 2017Textiles, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessment – Spring 2017C‐17 Aircraft Supplier Impact Assessment – Spring 2017U.S. Rocket Propulsion Industrial Base Assessment – Spring 2017Printed Circuit Boards Supply Chain Assessment– Fall 2016U.S. Strategic Material Supply Chain Assessment: Carbon Fiber Composites – Fall 2015Defense Industrial Base Assessment of the U.S. Underwater Acoustics Transducer Industry – Spring 2015Cost‐Metric Assessment of Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (Update) – February 2015U.S. Space Industrial Base “Deep Dive” Assessments: Small Businesses – December 2014U.S. Space Industrial Base “Deep Dive” Assessments: Workforce Issues – September 2014U.S. Space Industrial Base “Deep Dive” Assessments: Export Controls – February 2014Industrial Base Assessment of Consumers of U.S. Electro‐Optical (EO) Satellite Imagery – August 2013National Security Assessment of the Cartridge and Propellant Actuated Device Industry: Fourth Review – July 2013Critical Technology Assessment: Night Vision Focal Plane Arrays, Sensors, and Cameras – October 2012National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Industrial Base – Post‐Space Shuttle – June 2012Defense Industrial Base Assessment of the Telecommunications Industry Infrastructure – April 2012Reliance on Foreign Sourcing in the Healthcare and Public Health (HPH) Sector – December 2011Cost‐Metric Assessment of Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages – August 2010Critical Technology Assessment: Impact of U.S. Export Controls on Green Technology Items – August 2010Technology Assessment of Fine Grain, High‐Density Graphite – April 2010Defense Industrial Base Assessment of Counterfeit Electronics – January 2010Technology Assessment of 5‐Axis Machine Tools – July 2009Defense Industrial Base Assessment of U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability – March 2009
Archived Studies

Defense Industrial Base Assessment of the U.S. Space Industry – August 2007 International Market for Computer Software with Technology Assessment of Certain Aromatic Polyimides – July 2007 The Effect of Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum 

Dec. 1994

Defense Industrial Base Assessment of U.S. Imaging and Sensors Industry – October 2006 Critical Technology Assessment of U.S. Artificial InNational Security Assessment of the Cartridge and Propellant Actuated Device Industry: Third

Review – August 2006 Critical Technology Assessment of U.S. Supercond

Economic Impact Assessment of the Air Force C‐17 Program – Dec. 2005 Critical Technology Assessment of U.S. OptoelectNational Security Assessment of the Munitions Power Sources Industry – Dec. 2004 Critical Technology Assessment of U.S. Advanced National Security Assessment of the Air Delivery (Parachute) Industry – May 2004 Critical Technology Assessment of U.S. Advanced Industry Attitudes on Collaborating with DoD in R&D – Air Force – Jan. 2004 The Effect of Imports of Ceramic Semiconductor 

Aug. 1993

Industrial Base/Economic Impact Assessment of Army Theater Support Vessel Procurement –

Dec.2003 National Security Assessment of the U.S. Beryllium 

A Survey of the Use of Biotechnology in U.S. Industry – Oct. 2003 National Security Assessment of the Antifriction BIndustrial Base Assessment of U.S. Textile and Apparel Industries – Sept. 2003 National Security Assessment of the U.S. Forging Technology Assessment of U.S. Assistive Technology Industry – Feb. 2003 The Effect of Imports of Gears & Gearing ProductHeavy Manufacturing Industries: Economic Impact and Productivity of Welding – Navy – June

2002

Natl. Sec. Assessment of the Dom. and For. Subco

March 1992

The Effect of Imports of Iron Ore and Semi‐Finished Steel on the National Security – Oct. 2001 Natl. Sec. Assessment of the U.S. Semiconductor 

April 1991

National Security Assessment of the U.S. High‐Performance Explosives & Components Sector

–June 2001 National Security Assessment of the U.S. Robotics 

National Security Assessment of the U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Industry ‐ May 2001 National Security Assessment of the U.S. Gear IndStatistical Handbook of the Ball and Roller Bearing Industry (Update) ‐ June 2001 The Effect of Imports of Uranium on the National National Security Assessment of the Cartridge and Propellant Actuated Device Industry:

Update – Dec.2000

The Effect of Imports of Crude Oil and Refined Pe

– Jan. 1989

The Effect on the National Security of Imports of Crude Oil and Refined Petroleum Products –

Nov. 1999

The Effect of Imports of Plastic Injection Molding 

– Jan. 1989

U.S. Commercial Technology Transfers to The People’s Republic of China – Jan. 1999 The Effect of Imports of Anti‐Friction Bearings on Critical Technology Assessment of Optoelectronics – Oct. 1998 Investment Castings: A Natl. Security AssessmenNational Security Assessment of the Emergency Aircraft Ejection Seat Sector – Nov. 1997 An Economic Assessment of the U.S. Industrial FaCritical Technology Assessment of the U.S. Semiconductor Materials Industry ‐ April 1997 Joint Logistics Commanders/DOC Precision Optics National Security Assessment of the Cartridge and Propellant Actuated Device Industry –

Oct.1995 Joint Logistics Commanders/DOC Bearing Study ‐ 

For further information about OTE’s programs or for additional copies of reports, please visit 

http://www.bis.doc.gov/dib or contact:

Brad Botwin, Director, Industrial Base Studies, OTE

Phone: 202‐482‐4060 Fax: 202‐482‐5650 E‐mail: Brad.Botwin@bis.doc.gov