Notice2025-00727
Advancing the Domestic Manufacturing of Semiconductors in Commercial Information Technology
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
January 15, 2025
Issuing agencies
Management and Budget Office
Abstract
This request for information (RFI) seeks input on ways the Federal Government can build the resilience of domestic semiconductor manufacturing and maintain this essential capability through the procurement of commercial IT end products that include semiconductors fabricated in the United States. Specific feedback is sought on potential procurement approaches to minimize supply chain disruption and increase fabrication of semiconductors in the United States.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3963-3965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00727]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Advancing the Domestic Manufacturing of Semiconductors in
Commercial Information Technology
AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget.
ACTION: Request for information: Advancing the Domestic Manufacturing
of Semiconductors in Commercial Information Technology.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This request for information (RFI) seeks input on ways the
Federal Government can build the resilience of domestic semiconductor
manufacturing and maintain this essential capability through the
procurement of commercial IT end products that include semiconductors
fabricated in the United States. Specific feedback is sought on
potential procurement approaches to minimize supply chain disruption
and increase fabrication of semiconductors in the United States.
DATES: Responses to this request for information will be accepted for
consideration until March 17, 2025.
[[Page 3964]]
ADDRESSES: Responses must be submitted electronically through
<a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>. Mailed paper submissions will not be accepted, and
electronic submissions received after the deadline may not be
considered.
Instructions: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
search ``Commercial IT Procurement RFI'' to submit your comments
electronically. Information on how to use Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and
viewing the docket, is available on the site under ``FAQ'' (<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/faq">https://www.regulations.gov/faq</a>).
Privacy Act Statement: OMB is issuing this request for information
(RFI) pursuant to its authorities under the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and consistent with
Executive Order (E.O.) 14005 and sec. 70933(1) of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Public Law 117-58, which aim for every
executive agency to maximize the use of goods, products, and materials
produced in, and services offered in, the United States. Your response
to this RFI and submission of comments is voluntary. OMB will use your
feedback to inform sound decision-making on topics related to this RFI
regarding potential government-wide actions to revitalize the domestic
manufacturing base, create new opportunities for U.S. firms and
workers, and position U.S. businesses to compete and lead globally in
strategic industries. Please note that submissions received in response
to this notice may be posted in the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> or otherwise released in their entirety, including
any personal and business confidential information provided. Do not
include in your submissions any information of a confidential nature,
such as personal or proprietary information, or any information you
would not like to be made publicly available. The OMB Public Input
System of Records, OMB/INPUT/01 at 88 FR 20913 (<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/07/2023-07452/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/07/2023-07452/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records</a>) includes a list of routine uses associated with
the collection of this information.
Comments containing references, studies, research, and other
empirical data that are not widely published should include electronic
links to the referenced materials, if they are available online.
Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for response
preparation, or for the use of any information contained in the
response. A response to this RFI will not be viewed as a binding
commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas discussed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please direct questions regarding this
Notice to Eddie Garcia, Procurement Analyst (telephone: 202-881-7508)
or email the Made in America Office at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d406c696844634c60687f646e6c4d62606f2368627d236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a3eec2c7c6eacde2cec6d1cac0c2e3cccec18dc6ccd38dc4ccd5">[email protected]</span></a> with
``Commercial IT Procurement RFI'' in the subject line.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act of
2022, Public Law 117-167, made historic investments in American
semiconductor manufacturing to strengthen U.S. supply chains and help
address vulnerabilities identified in the Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) review of critical sectors conducted
pursuant to E.O. 14017, America's Supply Chains.
This RFI is part of a series of government-wide actions the
Administration is taking to build an essential domestic manufacturing
capability for semiconductors. This RFI complements related efforts to
minimize risk to U.S. economic and national security, which includes
potential rulemaking by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to
prohibit Federal agencies from procuring or obtaining semiconductors
manufactured in certain countries.
OMB's Made in America Office (MIAO) and Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) seek to understand how the Federal
acquisition system can best leverage domestic sources for
semiconductors to ensure a safe and secure supply chain for U.S.
government procured commercial IT products and services (hereafter
referred to as ``commercial IT''). Market segments of interest include:
--Telecommunication infrastructure and services
--Cloud/data center infrastructure and services
--ICT devices (e.g., mobile phones, laptops)
--Transportation/vehicles
MIAO and OFPP are especially interested in obtaining your views
regarding the impact of using contract requirements for dual sourcing,
potential agency reliance on the industrial mobilization exception to
full and open competition, or other contracting methods to create and
preserve this essential capability, mitigate the risk posed by undue
dependence on foreign manufacturing and help reduce costs currently
associated with domestic fabrication, assembly, test, and packaging
(hereafter referred to as ``manufacturing'').
Dual sourcing. Dual sourcing refers to the supply chain management
practice of requiring contractors to utilize at least two suppliers to
provide a specific component, material, or product for the purpose of
helping to build alternative sources of supply and reducing supply
chain disruption risks associated with relying on a single source.
Industrial mobilization. Procurement law and regulations have long
recognized exceptions to full and open competition for a period of
time, including when an agency can demonstrate that an exception is
necessary to award the contract to particular sources in order to (a)
maintain a facility, producer, manufacturer, or other supplier
available for furnishing supplies or services in case of a national
emergency or to achieve industrial mobilization; or (b) establish or
maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability
to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or a
Federally funded research and development center. 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(3),
41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3); FAR 6.302-3. Limiting competition to domestic
sources for a period of time to create or maintain the required
domestic capability for production of critical supplies has long been
identified in the FAR as a recognized application of the industrial
mobilization exception to full and competition and can help to address
the cost differences between domestic and foreign production by
building the competitiveness of the domestic market over time. For
additional information on industrial mobilization, see OFPP & MIAO,
Strengthening Domestic Sourcing for Critical Items (Mar. 13, 2024).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Strengthening-Domestic-Sourcing-for-Critical-Items.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Strengthening-Domestic-Sourcing-for-Critical-Items.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To understand the potential impact of these or other strategies,
OMB seeks feedback on the following questions. OMB is especially
interested in feedback as it pertains to data centers, telecom, and
other IT infrastructure and services, mobile devices, laptops, servers,
and workstations, as well as automobiles and other vehicles, but
welcomes feedback on any commercial IT that uses semiconductors.
For purposes of this RFI, the terms semiconductor and semiconductor
manufacturing have the same meanings as set forth in National Institute
of Standards and Technology regulations at 15 CFR 231.115 and 231.116.
Examples of semiconductors include
[[Page 3965]]
memory chips, logic chips such as microprocessors and microcontrollers,
complex systems-on-a-chip, and discrete, analog, and optoelectronic
chips. The RFI encompasses in its scope leading-edge, current-
generation, and mature-node semiconductors as defined in CHIPS Program
Office Notice of Funding Opportunities for commercial fabrication
facilities, Feb 28 2023]. For instance, leading-edge logic
semiconductors are those requiring extreme ultraviolet (EUV)
lithography tools for production (and equivalent performance spec for
memory chips); current-generation semiconductors are those that are not
leading-edge, up to 28 nanometer process technologies, and include
logic, analog, radio frequency, and mixed-signal devices; mature-node
semiconductors include sensors, optoelectronics, discrete devices, and
logic and analog chips not based on FinFET, post-FinFET, or any other
sub-28 nanometer transistor architectures.
Questions
1. If sufficient economic incentives existed, how quickly could you
begin to use domestically manufactured semiconductors? In responding,
please identify your market segment or segments (e.g., cloud services,
cloud infrastructure, telecom services, telecom infrastructure, user
devices, automobiles) and the type of chips you use most frequently.
2. Once you have determined that there is sufficient domestic
manufacturing of semiconductors, what factors, including economic
incentives, would affect your willingness to take advantage of this
supply? In responding, please identify your market segment.
3. How much production is needed to constitute a sufficient
domestic supply of semiconductors? In responding, please identify both
your market segment and the any information regarding semiconductors
that would be helpful to better understand your market segment needs.
4. Last year, the Federal Government purchased approximately $10
billion on IT hardware, including approximately 1.5 million mobile
devices and 1.3 million laptops, around $14 billion of cloud computing,
including data centers, and $5.43 billion of telecom services.
a. What steps might agencies take that could effectively
incentivize you to use domestically manufactured semiconductors in
meeting this demand (e.g., agency competitions limited to offerors who
use only domestically manufactured semiconductors; requirements that
awardees must use two different sources for semiconductors and at least
one source must provide domestically manufactured semiconductors;
agency forecasts published well in advance of solicitation that inform
interested sources of these competitions)? Please identify your market
segment.
b. Would you be willing to compete for an IT data center contract
or a telecom contract that requires the service provider to use
equipment with domestically manufactured semiconductors in the
performance of the required service? If not, why not? Would your answer
change if the statement of work required offerors to agree to use at
least two different sources for semiconductors?
c. What opportunities or challenges do you see for your market
segment if you were to use only domestically manufactured
semiconductors? Are there steps that could make the requirement more
manageable, such as with a phase-in (e.g., requiring a certain
percentage of semi-conductors to be domestically manufactured)?
d. Many state and local governments adopt Federal standards with
respect to their own procurement regulations. Would your responses
change to any of the above questions, if State and local governments
adopted, through their own authorities, complementary actions?
e. What percentage of your current offerings rely on domestically
manufactured semiconductors? Please identify your market segment.
f. Are there particular categories of semiconductors that would be
easier to source domestically or ones that would be more difficult?
g. Are there particular categories of semiconductors that would
constitute a larger portion of your purchased components and would be
better sourced domestically?
5. How far in advance of manufacturing must a purchase order be
secured from a semiconductor fabricator to support production, or
infrastructure build-out?
6. What, if any, significant domestic supply chain vulnerabilities
surrounding semiconductors are you aware of and what could be done to
reduce or eliminate those vulnerabilities? Are there other
vulnerabilities of which we should be aware?
7. To meet Federal sustainability purchasing requirements, should
domestically-produced commercial IT products with domestic
semiconductors include specifications, standards, or ecolabels
recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Federal
purchasing or be capable of meeting EPA's Framework for the Assessment
of Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Federal
Purchasing for future inclusion?
Questions for Domestic Manufacturers of Semiconductors
8. What is the anticipated timeline for domestic production and
anticipated capacity of various types of semiconductors, including but
not limited to memory chips, logic chips such as microprocessors and
microcontrollers, complex systems-on-a-chip, and discrete, analog, and
optoelectronic chips?
9. How much time do you need from the placement of an order from an
IT hardware manufacturer to deliver the semiconductors?
10. What is the anticipated timeline for domestic production and
capacity of associated components, including, but not limited to,
packaging of chips, mother boards, etc.?
11. What raw materials used in semiconductor manufacturing are in
limited or constrained supply and could prevent scale up of your
domestic manufacturing operations?
12. What manufacturing equipment do you use that are in limited or
constrained supply and could prevent scale up of your domestic
semiconductor manufacturing and operations?
13. What, if any, factors (for example, workforce, permitting,
access to high quality power/water, etc.) are causing significant
delays in bringing domestic manufacturing facilities online?
14. What types of innovations can help make the manufacturing
market more efficient?
Additional Questions for Interested Stakeholders
15. What actions should the Federal Government take to enable
strong small business participation by resellers offering commercial IT
with domestically fabricated semiconductors?
OMB intends to hold industry listening sessions in the coming
months to discuss industry feedback. Listening sessions will be noticed
through the Federal Register.
Christine J. Harada,
Senior Advisor, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Performing, by
delegation, the duties of the Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2025-00727 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 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 January 15, 2025.
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.