Notice2022-22221
Manufacturing USA Semiconductor Institutes
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 13, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Institute of Standards and Technology
Abstract
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is seeking public input to inform the design of, and requirements for, potential Manufacturing USA institutes to strengthen the semiconductor and microelectronics innovation ecosystem, which could include design, fabrication, advanced test, assembly, and packaging capability. These Manufacturing USA institutes are envisioned in Title XCIX of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) for America) to support efforts in research and development as well as education and workforce development, and that Act also provides for complementary initiatives including the National Semiconductor Technology Center, the National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program, and the NIST laboratories program supporting measurement science and standards. Responses to this Request for Information (RFI) will inform NIST's development of funding opportunities for federal assistance to establish Manufacturing USA semiconductor institutes.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62080-62084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22221]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
[Docket Number: 221004-0210]
Manufacturing USA Semiconductor Institutes
AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of
Commerce.
[[Page 62081]]
ACTION: Notice; request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is
seeking public input to inform the design of, and requirements for,
potential Manufacturing USA institutes to strengthen the semiconductor
and microelectronics innovation ecosystem, which could include design,
fabrication, advanced test, assembly, and packaging capability. These
Manufacturing USA institutes are envisioned in Title XCIX of the
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021 (Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors
(CHIPS) for America) to support efforts in research and development as
well as education and workforce development, and that Act also provides
for complementary initiatives including the National Semiconductor
Technology Center, the National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing
Program, and the NIST laboratories program supporting measurement
science and standards. Responses to this Request for Information (RFI)
will inform NIST's development of funding opportunities for federal
assistance to establish Manufacturing USA semiconductor institutes.
DATES: Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time November
28, 2022. Written comments in response to the RFI should be submitted
according to the instructions in the ADDRESSES and SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION sections below. Submissions received after that date may
not be considered.
ADDRESSES:
For Comments
Comments may be submitted by either of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic submission: Submit electronic public comments
via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
1. Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and enter NIST-2022-0002 in the search
field,
2. Click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields,
and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
<bullet> Email: Comments in electronic form may also be sent to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#024f646550444b426c6b71762c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="470a212015010e07292e343369202831">[email protected]</span></a> in any of the following formats: HTML; ASCII; Word;
RTF; or PDF.
Please submit comments only and include your name, organization's
name (if any), and cite ``Manufacturing USA semiconductor institutes''
in all correspondence. Comments containing references, studies,
research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should
include copies of the referenced materials.
All comments responding to this document will be a matter of public
record. Relevant comments will generally be available on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.Regulations.gov">http://www.Regulations.gov</a> and on NIST's website
at <a href="https://www.nist.gov/oam/manufacturing-usa-semiconductor-institute-request-information-rfi">https://www.nist.gov/oam/manufacturing-usa-semiconductor-institute-request-information-rfi</a>. NIST will not accept comments accompanied by a
request that part or all of the material be treated confidentially
because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason.
Therefore, do not submit confidential business information or otherwise
sensitive, protected, or personal information, such as account numbers,
Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals.
For RFI Informational Webinars
NIST will hold informational webinars explaining how the public can
submit comments. Details about these informational webinars, including
dates and registration deadlines, will be announced at <a href="https://www.nist.gov/oam/manufacturing-usa-semiconductor-institute-request-information-rfi">https://www.nist.gov/oam/manufacturing-usa-semiconductor-institute-request-information-rfi</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this RFI contact:
Kelley Rogers in the Office of Advanced Manufacturing, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, telephone number 301-219-8543 or
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91dcf7f6c3d7d8d1fff8e2e5bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eca18a8bbeaaa5ac82859f98c28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>. Please direct media inquiries to NIST's Office
of Public Affairs at (301) 975-2762.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Semiconductors are fundamental to nearly all modern industrial and
national security activities, and they are essential building blocks of
critical and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence,
autonomous systems, next generation communications, and quantum
computing.
The U.S. semiconductor industry has historically led in many parts
of the semiconductor supply chain, such as research and development
(R&D), chip design, and manufacturing. Over the past several years, the
U.S. position in the global semiconductor industry has faced numerous
challenges. In 2019, the United States accounted for 11 percent of
global semiconductor fabrication capacity, down from 13 percent in 2015
and continuing a long-term decline from around 37 percent in 1990.
Semiconductor packaging also presents a critical supply chain challenge
since less than 3% of global packaging capacity is in North America.\1\
Much of the overseas semiconductor manufacturing capacity is in Taiwan,
South Korea, and, increasingly, China.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://semiengineering.com/expanding-advanced-packaging-production-in-the-u-s/">https://semiengineering.com/expanding-advanced-packaging-production-in-the-u-s/</a>.
\2\ <a href="https://www.semiconductors.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Government-Incentives-and-US-Competitiveness-in-Semiconductor-Manufacturing-Sep-2020.pdf">https://www.semiconductors.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Government-Incentives-and-US-Competitiveness-in-Semiconductor-Manufacturing-Sep-2020.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fragility of the current global semiconductor supply chain was
put squarely on display in 2020. The industry faced significant
disruptions as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, a fire affecting a
major supplier in Japan, and a severe winter storm that disabled
production in facilities in Texas for several days.\3\ These events,
together with other factors, such as pandemic-induced shifts in
consumer demand, contributed to a global semiconductor shortage that
affected multiple manufacturing sectors that rely on semiconductors as
critical components for their finished products. Especially severely
hit was the automotive industry, which saw plants idled for months.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ <a href="https://www.ept.ca/features/global-chip-shortage-a-timeline-of-unfortunate-events/">https://www.ept.ca/features/global-chip-shortage-a-timeline-of-unfortunate-events/</a>.
\4\ <a href="https://hbr.org/2021/02/why-were-in-the-midst-of-a-global-semiconductor-shortage">https://hbr.org/2021/02/why-were-in-the-midst-of-a-global-semiconductor-shortage</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Commerce published a Request for Information (or
``RFI'') in September of 2021 on the semiconductor supply chain (86 FR
53031, September 24, 2021). More than 150 responses were received from
commenters including nearly every major semiconductor producer and
representative companies that consume these products across multiple
industry sectors. These responses provided new insight into the complex
and global semiconductor supply chain.\5\ Respondents pointed out a
major supply and demand gap that is increasing annually, with very
limited inventory on hand for key industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ <a href="https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2022/01/results-semiconductor-supply-chain-request-information">https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2022/01/results-semiconductor-supply-chain-request-information</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To strengthen the U.S. position in semiconductor R&D and
manufacturing, Congress authorized a set of programs in Title XCIX of
the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law 116-283, as amended by sections 103 and
105 of the CHIPS Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-167, Division A), codified at
15 U.S.C. 4651 et seq. (hereinafter, CHIPS for America Act). This
comprehensive set of programs is intended to restore U.S. leadership in
semiconductor manufacturing by providing incentives and encouraging
investment to expand manufacturing capacity for the most advanced
[[Page 62082]]
semiconductor designs as well as those of more mature designs that are
still in high demand, and would grow the research and innovation
ecosystem for semiconductor and microelectronics R&D in the United
States, including the investments in the infrastructure necessary to
better integrate advances in research into semiconductor manufacturing.
President Biden's American Jobs Plan \6\ calls for at least $50
billion to fund this set of programs. As funded by section 102 of the
CHIPS Act of 2022:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/">https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> $39 billion is available for a program to incentivize
investment in facilities and equipment in the United States for the
fabrication, assembly, testing, advanced packaging, production, or
research and development of semiconductors, materials used to
manufacture semiconductors, or semiconductor manufacturing equipment;
<bullet> $11 billion is available to support several R&D and
infrastructure investments including the establishment of a National
Semiconductor Technology Center, investments in advanced packaging, the
creation of up to three Manufacturing USA institutes targeting
semiconductors, and expansion of NIST's metrology R&D in support of
semiconductor and microelectronics R&D.
Under Section 9906(f) of the CHIPS for America Act, the Director of
NIST may establish up to three Manufacturing USA Institutes described
in section 34(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C. 278s(d)) that are focused
on semiconductor manufacturing. In addition, the Secretary of Commerce
may award financial assistance to any Manufacturing USA institute for
work relating to semiconductor manufacturing. Such institutes may
emphasize the following:
(1) Research to support the virtualization and automation of
maintenance of semiconductor machinery.
(2) Development of new advanced test, assembly and packaging
capabilities.
(3) Developing and deploying educational and skills training
curricula needed to support the industry sector and ensure the United
States can build and maintain a trusted and predictable talent
pipeline.
Request for Information
This RFI outlines the information NIST is seeking from the public
to inform the development of up to three Manufacturing USA
semiconductor institutes that will strengthen leadership and national
resilience of the U.S. semiconductor and microelectronics industry and
other industries that rely on microelectronics, through research and
development of manufacturing technology, and enhanced education and
workforce development.
The following questions cover the major areas about which NIST
seeks comment. They are not intended to limit the topics that may be
addressed. Responses may include any topic believed to have
implications for the development of Manufacturing USA semiconductor
institutes, regardless of whether the topic is included in this
document. Any one of the topics listed below, on its own, in
combination with other topics listed, or in combination with other
topics not contained in this notice, could be the basis of a
Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute.
When addressing the topics below, commenters may address the
practices of their organization or a group of organizations with which
they are familiar. If desired, commenters may provide information about
the type, size, and location of the organization(s). Provision of such
information is optional and will not affect NIST's consideration.
NIST is seeking comments on the following questions, and encourages
responses from the public, including key stakeholders in the
semiconductor and microelectronics ecosystem, for the purpose of
informing the design of a funding opportunity for Manufacturing USA
semiconductor institutes:
Institute Scope
1. The Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute program is one
component of an $11 billion R&D effort that includes the National
Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program, the National Semiconductor
Technology Research Center and the NIST laboratories. The entire R&D
program is intended to be interconnected and comprehensive, with no
gaps and minimal redundancy, to position the United States for
technology and workforce leadership in the semiconductor and
microelectronics sector for the long-term prosperity of the nation.
Additionally, the Manufacturing USA authorizing statute specifies that
new institutes must not substantially duplicate the technology focus of
any other Manufacturing USA institute. From your perspective, what role
do you envision for new Manufacturing USA semiconductor institutes that
will best complement the other R&D investments and remain consistent
with the programmatic purposes of Manufacturing USA? Since the
Secretary of Commerce may award financial assistance to any existing
Manufacturing USA institutes for work relating to semiconductor
manufacturing, what role do you envision for existing, federally-
sponsored Manufacturing USA institutes with respect to semiconductor
manufacturing?
2. The technological breadth of innovation in semiconductors and
microelectronics is likely larger than can be served by any single
Manufacturing USA institute. Therefore, each Manufacturing USA
semiconductor institute should have an appropriate scope to ensure that
each institute is impactful and does not duplicate efforts of other
programs. Historically, institutes in the current network of existing
Manufacturing USA institutes have generally been funded for an initial
5 years at $150 million to $600 million, including federal funding and
cost-sharing (co-investment) from non-federal partners. What would be
the ideal scope and corresponding financial investment from federal and
non-federal partners, for a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute
to achieve the needed impact on competitiveness?
3. Potential technology areas of focus that could be addressed by
the Manufacturing USA semiconductor institutes to complement the
National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program and the National
Semiconductor Technology Research Center in Question 1 are listed
below. What are your thoughts on the appropriateness of each for the
scope of work for a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute? What
other topics should be included in the scope of an institute?
<bullet> Chip-package architectures and co-design of integrated
circuits and advanced packaging. May include artificial intelligence,
security, test methodologies, etc.
<bullet> Technologies to increase the microelectronics
manufacturing productivity of American workers, lower costs and offset
the drastic shortfall of skilled workers.
<bullet> Assembly and Test metrologies to develop new analytical
equipment and analysis capabilities based upon standards.
<bullet> Coding and system software with novel computing paradigms
and architectures, including chiplet compatibility with earlier
generations.
[[Page 62083]]
<bullet> Integration of security into packaging, interposers and/or
substrates.
<bullet> High Density Interposers and substrates, incorporating new
materials and designs.
<bullet> Chiplet-enabled trusted packaging facilities that obviate
the need for trusted foundries.
<bullet> New materials, such as glass for substrates, or compound
semiconductors.
<bullet> Environmental Sustainability for semiconductor
manufacturing.
<bullet> Analog and Gigahertz Technology materials and metrology,
enabling beyond 5G, the Industrial Internet of Things and Industry 4.0.
<bullet> Performance and Process Modeling and Metrology
4. What criteria should be used to select technology focus areas in
delineating the scope for a Manufacturing USA institute focused on
semiconductor manufacturing?
5. What technology focus areas that meet the criteria suggested in
Question 4 above would you be willing to co-invest in?
Institute Structure and Governance
6. Existing Manufacturing USA institutes were launched and operate
in alignment with the design principles published in 2012 as the
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: A Preliminary Design
(<a href="https://www.manufacturingusa.com/reports/national-network-manufacturing-innovation-preliminary-design">https://www.manufacturingusa.com/reports/national-network-manufacturing-innovation-preliminary-design</a>). Are there any unique
considerations for the semiconductor and microelectronics sector that
may require modifications to the conventional design for any
Manufacturing USA semiconductor institutes under consideration?
7. Semiconductor R&D and manufacturing cover substantial technical
breadth. What business models or best practices should be employed by a
Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute to support U.S. leadership
and effectively manage emerging technologies to support
commercialization? What advantages or disadvantages would there be to
one ``super-sized'' Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute that
would cover the technology sector broadly? Since Congress authorized
the NIST Director to establish up to three institutes, what advantages
or disadvantages would there be for multiple Manufacturing USA
semiconductor institutes each with a smaller scope focused on a
specific technology area? How would one Manufacturing USA semiconductor
institute or multiple institutes structure relationships with other
significant partners to spur collaborative work?
8. What membership and participation structure for a Manufacturing
USA semiconductor institute would be most effective for ensuring
participation by industry, academia, and other critical stakeholders,
particularly with respect to financial and intellectual property
obligations, access, and licensing? Based on your knowledge of current
Manufacturing USA institute practices, are the needs of potential
semiconductor institutes different than for other institutes?
Strategies for Driving Co-Investment and Engagement
9. The authorizing statute for Manufacturing USA requires at least
an equal non-federal co-investment in Manufacturing USA institutes to
match the federal investment. From your perspective, what are the most
significant considerations to garner support for the required co-
investment for a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute? What is the
anticipated impact of the new Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for industry
established in the CHIPS Act on the level of investment in the new
Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute(s), in facilities, including
for manufacturing equipment and construction? How might a Manufacturing
USA semiconductor institute be set up to best leverage the Investment
Tax Credit?
10. For the required non-federal co-investment for a Manufacturing
USA semiconductor institute, with respect to the different types of co-
investment (e.g., cash, equipment donations, facilities access, etc.),
are there factors unique to the semiconductor industry that would
impact how the co-investment could be structured to best support the
institute?
11. What arrangements for co-investment proportions and types could
help a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute sustain operations in
the absence of continued federal support?
12. A Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute should support
domestic competitiveness. How should relationships with foreign
entities be structured or constrained to support domestic manufacturing
priorities while maximizing the opportunities to leverage international
expertise and resources? In what circumstances should the Manufacturing
USA Semiconductor institutes and NIST as the federal sponsor, consider
membership requests from foreign-owned businesses?
13. How should a new Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute
engage other existing Manufacturing USA institutes (<a href="https://www.manufacturingusa.com/institutes">https://www.manufacturingusa.com/institutes</a>), including those awarded funds for
work related to semiconductor manufacturing, and other manufacturing
related programs and networks such as the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (<a href="https://www.nist.gov/mep">https://www.nist.gov/mep</a>) and the U.S. Department of
Energy's Next Generation Power Electronics National Manufacturing
Innovation Institute (``Power America'')?
14. How should a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute interact
with State and local economic development entities?
15. How should a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute
coordinate with and inform standards development bodies on the need to
modify existing or develop new standards as a result of this
initiative?
Education and Workforce Development
16. How could a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute best
support advanced manufacturing workforce development and/or awareness
at all educational levels (e.g., for K-12 through post-graduate
students)?
17. How could a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute best
engage and leverage the diversity of educational and vocational
training organizations (e.g., universities, community colleges, trade
schools, etc.)?
18. How could a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute best
ensure that advanced manufacturing workforce development activities
address the industry's priorities?
19. How could a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute best
leverage and complement existing education and workforce development
programs?
20. What measures could assess Manufacturing USA semiconductor
institute performance and impact on education and workforce
development?
21. How might a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute integrate
research and development activities and education to best prepare the
current and future workforce?
22. How could a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute help
build a steady pipeline of skilled workers? What knowledge, skills and
abilities will future workers need, and are there workers with those
skills currently employed in other sectors?
23. How could a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute broaden
the talent base (i.e., embrace diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility; reach women and minority
[[Page 62084]]
communities, engage non-traditional workers, engage separating service
members, veterans, and families) to modernize the workforce?
24. What type of education and workforce development activities
should a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute support (e.g.,
curricula, online education, hybrid, entrepreneurship opportunities,
credentialing, regional development, train the trainers, internships/
apprenticeship, learning labs, etc.) and why?
Metrics and Success
25. What metrics could be used to best evaluate the performance of
a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute in accelerating innovation,
and any associated impacts on economic competitiveness and national
security? Are there sector-specific metrics for an institute in the
semiconductor technology space?
26. What type of metrics could be used to best evaluate the
performance and impact of a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute
on education and workforce development in support of U.S.
competitiveness?
27. What type of metrics could be used to best evaluate the
performance and impact of a Manufacturing USA semiconductor institute
in establishing and expanding the U.S. semiconductor manufacturing
ecosystem?
28. What constitutes a successful first year for a Manufacturing
USA semiconductor institute? What forms of support, and from which
partners, are needed to ensure a successful first year?
Alicia Chambers,
NIST Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2022-22221 Filed 10-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 13, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.