[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3497-3501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01305]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[Docket Number: 220119-0024]


Incentives, Infrastructure, and Research and Development Needs To 
Support a Strong Domestic Semiconductor Industry

AGENCY: Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department), with the assistance 
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), is 
seeking information in order to inform the planning and design of 
potential programs to: Incentivize investment in semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities and associated ecosystems; provide for shared 
infrastructure to accelerate semiconductor research, development, and 
prototyping; and support research related to advanced packaging and 
advanced metrology to ensure a robust domestic semiconductor industry. 
Responses to this Request for Information (RFI) will inform the 
planning of the Department of Commerce for the potential implementation 
of these programs.

DATES: Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on March 25, 
2022. Written comments in response to this RFI should be submitted in 
accordance with the instructions in the ADDRESSES and SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION sections below. Submissions received after that date may 
not be considered.

ADDRESSES:

For Comments

    To respond to this RFI, please submit electronic public comments 
via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
    1. Go to www.regulations.gov and enter DOC-2021-0010 in the search 
field,
    2. Click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, 
and
    3. Enter or attach your comments.
    Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or 
individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be 
considered.
    Comments containing references, studies, research, and other 
empirical data that are not widely published should include electronic 
copies of the referenced materials. Please do not submit additional 
materials.
    All relevant comments received in response to the RFI will be made 
publicly available on www.regulations.gov. All submissions, including 
attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the 
public record and subject to public disclosure. Personal information, 
such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other 
individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to 
remove any identifying or contact information. Do not submit 
confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected 
information. Comments that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or 
other inappropriate language or content will not be considered.

For Public Meetings/Webcast

    The Department may hold future workshops to explore in more detail 
questions raised in the RFI. Notice and details about any potential 
future workshop dates and registration deadlines, etc. will be 
announced at www.nist.gov/semiconductors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For questions about this Notice, contact: George Orji, in the NIST 
Program Coordination Office, at [email protected], (301) 975-3475.
    Please direct media inquiries to Jennifer Huergo in the NIST Public 
Affairs Office at [email protected], (301) 975-6343.

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 dominated 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 40 
percent in 1990. Much of the overseas semiconductor manufacturing 
capacity is in Taiwan (led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 
Company), South Korea (led by Samsung), and, increasingly, China.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.semiconductors.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Government-Incentives-and-US-Competitiveness-in-Semiconductor-Manufacturing-Sep-2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, 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.\2\ 
Together these events and other factors such as pandemic-induced shifts 
in consumer demand contributed to a global semiconductor shortage that 
affected multiple manufacturing sectors which rely on semiconductors as 
critical components for their finished products. Especially severely 
hit was the automotive industry, which saw plants idled for months.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.ept.ca/features/global-chip-shortage-a-timeline-of-unfortunate-events/.
    \3\ https://hbr.org/2021/02/why-were-in-the-midst-of-a-global-semiconductor-shortage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To strengthen the U.S. position in semiconductor R&D and 
manufacturing, Congress authorized a set of programs in Title XCIX 
(``Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors in America'') 
of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283). This comprehensive set 
of programs is intended to restore U.S. leadership in semiconductor 
manufacturing by providing incentives and encouraging investment to 
expand manufacturing

[[Page 3498]]

capacity for the most advanced 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 microelectronics and 
semiconductor R&D in the U.S., including the investments in the 
infrastructure necessary to better integrate advances in research into 
semiconductor manufacturing.
    President Biden's American Jobs Plan \4\ calls for at least $50 
billion to fund this set of programs, and Congress is considering 
legislation with similar funding levels over the next 5 years.\5\ If 
funded as proposed in the United States Innovation and Competitiveness 
Act (USICA) S.1260:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/.
    \5\ S. 1260 Section 1002 (A) 2 (i) through (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $39B would be directed to incentivize the construction or 
modernization of facilities in the U.S. for semiconductor fabrication, 
assembly, testing, advanced packaging, or R&D and
     Another $11.2B would support several R&D and 
infrastructure investments including the establishment of a National 
Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC), investments in advanced 
packaging, the creation of a Manufacturing USA institute targeting 
semiconductors, and expansion of NIST's metrology R&D in support of 
semiconductor and microelectronics R&D.

Goals of This Request for Information

    This RFI invites the public to inform the design and implementation 
of the set of potential Department of Commerce programs laid out in the 
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283) (NDAA). Comments are invited from 
all interested parties, domestic or foreign, including semiconductor 
manufacturers; industries associated with or that support the 
semiconductor industry, such as materials providers, equipment 
suppliers, manufacturers, and designers; trade associations, 
educational institutions, and government entities; original equipment 
manufacturers; semiconductor buyers; semiconductor industry investors; 
and any other stakeholders.
    The Department of Commerce seeks input on the potential set of 
programs in general and the following topics specifically:
     Semiconductor Financial Assistance Program--The incentive 
program, under Section 9902 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283) 
(NDAA), should it be funded by Congress, will be competitively awarded 
to private entities, consortia of private entities, or public-private 
consortia to incentivize the establishment, expansion, or modernization 
of semiconductor manufacturing facilities and supporting 
infrastructure. Funds will target production of leading-edge and mature 
logic chips, analog chips essential to critical industries and defense 
needs, and memory chips.
     National Semiconductor Technology Center--Under Section 
9906 (c) of the NDAA, the National Semiconductor Technology Center 
(NSTC) is authorized to conduct advanced semiconductor manufacturing 
R&D and prototyping; establish an investment fund; and promote and 
expand workforce training and development opportunities. As authorized, 
the Department currently envisions the NSTC as a hub of talent, 
knowledge, investment, equipment and toolsets that tackles Moore's Law 
transitions, research into new materials, architectures, processes, 
devices, and applications, and, most importantly, bridges the gap 
between R&D and commercialization. Should NSTC be funded by Congress, 
companies would be expected to co-invest and participate in developing 
their own intellectual property together with NSTC staff, and to 
collaborate with other companies, universities and Federal labs on pre-
competitive technologies and designs.
     Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program--Advanced 
packaging and heterogeneous integration present a significant 
opportunity for innovation, leading to better yields, lower costs, 
greater functionality, reuse of intellectual property blocks enabling 
accelerated design iterations and customization, and improved energy 
efficiency. With support, there is a unique opportunity for U.S.-based 
equipment suppliers and manufacturers to lead in this critical area.
     Workforce Development Needs of the Industry--The growth 
and sustainment of the Nation's semiconductor industry depends on a 
highly skilled workforce capable of meeting current and future needs of 
the public and private sectors.
    The goal of this RFI is to gather input that will be utilized to 
develop resources and programs to protect and extend U.S. semiconductor 
technology leadership; secure the supply of chips for critical, 
commercial and non-commercial U.S. sectors; and promote the economic 
viability of U.S. industry in R&D, manufacturing, and other critical 
areas of the semiconductor value chain, should the Creating Helpful 
Incentives for the Production of Semiconductors (CHIPS) for America Act 
programs be funded by Congress.

Public Meeting

    The Department may hold future workshops to explore in more detail 
questions raised in the RFI. Notice and details about any potential 
future workshop dates and registration deadlines will be announced at 
www.nist.gov/semiconductors.

Details About Responses to This Request for Information

    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 the Department's full 
consideration of the comment.
    All relevant comments received in response to the RFI will be made 
publicly available on www.regulations.gov. Comments containing 
references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not 
widely published should include electronic copies of the referenced 
materials. All submissions, including attachments and other supporting 
materials, will become part of the public record and will be subject to 
public disclosure. Personal information, such as account numbers or 
Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be 
included. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise 
sensitive or protected information. Comments that contain profanity, 
vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language or content will not 
be considered.

Specific Requests for Information

    The following statements and questions cover the major topic areas 
about which the Department seeks comment. They are not intended to 
limit the topics that may be addressed. Responses may include any topic 
believed to inform U.S. Government efforts in developing 
recommendations for supporting the growth and sustainment of a robust 
domestic semiconductor manufacturing sector to meet the current and 
future needs of the public and private sectors, regardless of whether 
the topic is included in this document.

[[Page 3499]]

    Respondents are encouraged to respond to any or all of the 
following questions and topic areas, and may address related topics. 
Please identify the questions or topic areas each of your comments 
addresses. Responses may include estimates. Please indicate where the 
response is an estimate. Respondents may organize their submissions in 
response to this RFI in any manner.
    All relevant responses that comply with the requirements listed in 
the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this RFI will be considered.
    The Department is requesting information related to the following 
topics:

Semiconductor Financial Assistance Program

    1. The term ``semiconductor'' is not specifically defined in 
Section 9902 of the NDAA; rather, the legislation leaves it to the 
Secretary of Commerce to define. What factors do you consider important 
in developing a definition of ``semiconductor'' for purposes of a 
semiconductor manufacturing incentives program?
    2. Section 9902 permits a ``consortium'' of public and private 
entities to apply for funding. What factors would public and private 
entities consider determining whether to apply for funding as part of 
consortium? How would private entities determine whether to work with a 
public entity as part of a consortium? How would a private entity 
consider working with other private entities (such as customers, 
equipment manufacturers, or capital providers) as part of a consortium?
    3. Based on the criteria outlined in Section 9902 of the NDAA, what 
types of facilities, equipment, and other capacity aligned with the 
manufacture of semiconductors do you see as being most critical to the 
interests of the United States?
    4. Based on the criteria outlined in Section 9902 of the NDAA, what 
do you see as presenting the biggest challenges for an organization to 
develop an application for funding as part of a consortium, and how 
long do you estimate it would take for an organization to prepare the 
required materials?
    5. Subject to the criteria and eligibility requirements outlined in 
Section 9902 of the NDAA, what other factors should the Secretary 
consider as important when reviewing applications for Federal financial 
assistance?
    6. Section 9902 defines a covered entity to include, among other 
things public-private consortia, which could include partnerships 
between semiconductor firms and customers, suppliers, investors, state 
and local governments, federally funded research and development 
centers (FFRDCs), and other entities. How can Section 9902 incentives 
be designed and deployed to encourage additional and new private 
capital investment in the semiconductor ecosystem? What can be learned 
from other technology infrastructure development programs that use such 
partnerships (e.g., data center facilities or communications 
infrastructure) that may be applicable to semiconductor facilities?
    7. How can federal financial assistance, consortia, or public-
private partnerships be structured to maximize the initial scale of 
projects and to ensure ongoing reinvestment in project expansions, tool 
upgrades, and productivity improvements for the projects to remain 
economically viable and competitive over time? What opportunities exist 
for manufacturers to partner with private capital providers or use 
project financing to maximize the impact of the Federal financial 
assistance awards to achieve these objectives?
    8. How can Federal funds incentivize the creation of a broad 
semiconductor ecosystem that includes producers of semiconductor 
manufacturing equipment and other upstream suppliers? What are the 
largest supply imbalances with respect to manufacturing equipment, 
tools, materials, and chemicals that need to be addressed by U.S. 
investment?
    9. How can the program ensure that semiconductor startups and small 
and midsized companies have access to commercial fabrication, assembly, 
testing and packaging facilities and associated technical expertise, 
including intellectual property products such as ``Process Design 
Kits''?
    10. Under the law, the Secretary may consider whether a covered 
entity includes a small business concern as defined under Section 3 of 
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). Would it be beneficial for the 
Department to encourage large entities to partner with medium and small 
business suppliers?
    11. Section 9902 requires a covered entity to make commitments to 
invest in workers and communities, including through training and 
education benefits and programs to expand employment opportunity for 
economically disadvantaged individuals. What constitutes a baseline 
commitment to worker training in the semiconductor industry and what 
other workforce investments should be considered? Are there 
international best practices or cooperation upon which your company 
finds beneficial? What other community investments should be considered 
beyond worker training and employment opportunities? How can worker 
training, other workforce commitments, and other community commitments 
be maximized and how should program participants be held accountable to 
their commitments? What types of programs exist, or could be expanded, 
to improve access for economically disadvantaged individuals to these 
workforce and community commitments and opportunities?
    12. Section 9902 requires a covered entity to have secured 
commitments from regional educational and training entities and 
institutions of higher learning to provide workforce training to be 
eligible for funding. Looking at the semiconductor sector broadly, what 
are the greatest workforce development needs, and how can Federal 
financial assistance meet those needs? What specific types of workforce 
training programs would be the most beneficial to companies in these 
sectors? What existing workforce training programs have proven 
effective and should be expanded, including international exchanges or 
best practices? How could a program best ensure that workforce training 
and development meet critical national needs?
    13. What is the industry's environmental footprint in terms of its 
land and resource use, air quality and water quality impact, hazardous 
or other special-handling material needs, and greenhouse gas emissions 
impact? What is the industry currently planning or implementing on 
these dimensions and how will the environmental footprint likely change 
over the next decade as a result? What effect will semiconductor chip 
customers' ``net zero'' announcements or other related incentives have 
on the industry's environmental footprint? What opportunities exist for 
the industry to move to a smaller and more sustainable footprint, and 
how can such opportunities be used to create a stronger domestic market 
for chips produced with a smaller footprint?

National Semiconductor Technology Center

    1. Based on the functions outlined in section 9906(c) of the NDAA 
the Department's current vision of the NSTC is as a hub (or multiple 
hubs) of talent, knowledge, investment, equipment, and toolsets that 
tackles Moore's Law transitions, post-CMOS research into new materials, 
architectures, processes, devices, and applications, and that bridges 
the gap

[[Page 3500]]

between R&D and commercialization. What attributes are most important 
for the NSTC to possess or provide to the community (e.g., ease of 
access, a broad suite of leading edge tools managed as central 
facility, a collaborative research environment)? What key factors are 
critical for the NSTC to address the current gaps in the semiconductor 
R&D ecosystem?
    2. As authorized, the NSTC would have to be able to work with a 
wide range of research groups from industry, academia, and government, 
some of whom will be contributing valuable intellectual property. What 
approaches to intellectual property should be in place to protect the 
foundational contributions of members while enabling maximum 
collaboration and innovation amongst the research community supported 
by NSTC? What IP issues create unique challenges for middle- and late-
stage prototyping collaborations versus early-stage research, design 
and proof-of-concept collaborations?
    3. The federal government has several programs that support 
microelectronics and associated R&D across many agencies, federal labs, 
university labs, corporate labs, and other for-profit and nonprofit 
entities. What existing domestic R&D activities, assets, intellectual 
property, knowledge and expertise should be incorporated or otherwise 
connected to the NSTC, and are any international in nature? How should 
the NSTC interface with federal labs, university labs, corporate labs 
and other existing institutions of R&D and prototyping to ensure that 
R&D projects are supported throughout the technology maturation process 
so that public research funds are able to improve R&D productivity and 
attract additional private and venture investment?
    4. How should the NSTC connect to National Network for 
Semiconductor R&D, authorized by Sec. 9903 of the FY 2021 NDAA? What 
considerations should be given to ensure strong integration between the 
two efforts? Should there be overlap in the technology readiness levels 
served by each program?
    5. How should the NSTC ensure that it can identify and invest in 
what comes next after the first wave of needs are identified in the 
initial years? To what extent does the semiconductor ecosystem need a 
long-term roadmap of application requirements, technical needs, and 
gaps in materials, tooling and equipment, and process capabilities in 
order to guide future R&D investments? How can the NSTC's investments 
best support an open roadmap of this type, and how should the NSTC 
interface with other governments or allied international R&D programs, 
such as those established under Section 9905 of the FY2021 NDAA, to 
enable such a roadmap? What existing technology forums, roadmaps, or 
other initiatives should be incorporated into such efforts?
    6. The NSTC is envisioned as a public-private partnership. What are 
the most suitable models of public-private partnership for the R&D and 
prototyping gaps that the NSTC is envisioned to address? What are the 
roles of the public participants and the private-sector participants in 
this partnership, including any international participants? How should 
governance structures, program objectives, investment criteria, and 
oversight and accountability requirements be structured to maximize the 
transformative potential of the NSTC in the US R&D ecosystem?
    7. What operational and organizational characteristics, business 
processes, and practices will be important in ensuring that the 
resources of the NSTC are broadly accessible and available to the 
broader U.S. semiconductor R&D community including both small and 
larger, more established entities? How can the NSTC ensure that smaller 
and medium-sized companies and startups have access to facilities, 
expertise, and intellectual property that public funds support?
    8. For those who currently participate or have participated in a 
``research consortium'' (either domestic or international) made up of 
public and private partners, what are the important lessons learned or 
best practices that the NSTC should follow?
    9. What attributes or capabilities of the NSTC would make it 
attractive and beneficial for companies, universities, and other 
agencies to want to send employees for assignments at the NSTC? What 
types of research and training opportunities should be made available 
at the NSTC for students and early career staff?
    10. For organizations that currently utilize an external 
semiconductor ``fab'' as part of their R&D efforts, what services or 
processes are currently missing in the U.S. ecosystem that the NSTC 
should provide? Are there specific toolsets that the NSTC should own 
and operate or provide access to?
    11. As authorized, the NSTC could establish an investment fund, in 
partnership with the private sector, to support startups and 
collaborations between startups, academia, established companies, and 
new ventures, with the goal of commercializing innovations that 
contribute to the domestic semiconductor ecosystem, including advanced 
metrology and characterization for leading-edge manufacturing 
processes, and for security and supply chain verification. How should 
this investment fund be structured, and what should be the roles of the 
public and private sectors in capitalizing, operating, and overseeing 
the fund and selecting its investment targets? Should the investment 
fund focus on early-stage investing, late-stage investing, or other 
stages of the process? How should the fund interact with existing 
private capital, both venture capital and established investment 
capital, and how can the fund sustain itself through its investments?
    12. How should the NSTC's investments and focus overlap or 
complement the investments and capabilities of foreign institutions 
such as the Interuniversity Microelectronics Center (imec) in Belgium 
or the French Laboratoire d'[eacute]lectronique des technologies de 
l'information (CEA-Leti)?

Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program

    1. Please describe the application areas that are essential to 
long-term national leadership in semiconductor packaging, and, where 
possible, identify groupings where work must be closely coordinated in 
a program distributed in multiple hubs. Examples include but are not 
limited to:


[cir] Analog device packaging
[cir] Automotive
[cir] Defense and aerospace
[cir] Energy generation, transmission, conversion, and storage
[cir] Harsh environments
[cir] High performance computing, quantum computing, data centers
[cir] Integrated photonics
[cir] Integrated power electronics
[cir] Internet of Things
[cir] Mature packaging
[cir] Medical, health & wearables
[cir] MEMS and sensor electronics
[cir] Mobile telecommunications
[cir] Other?

    2. Please describe the R&D core-competencies that are essential to 
national leadership in semiconductor packaging, and, where possible, 
identify groupings where work must be closely coordinated in a program 
distributed in multiple hubs. Examples include but are not limited to:
[cir] Alternative materials to mitigate impact of supply chain 
disruptions
[cir] Artificial intelligence for design of packaging
[cir] Assembly and test

[[Page 3501]]

[cir] Emerging materials
[cir] Heterogeneous integration, chip stacking, and related 
technologies.
[cir] High-density substrates
[cir] Metrology
[cir] Modeling and simulation
[cir] Package-level design/codesign tools for electrical, thermal and 
mechanical design of complex packages
[cir] Printed circuit boards
[cir] Safety and security
[cir] Software, firmware, new concepts in programming
[cir] Standards
[cir] Test solutions to assure yield in complex packages
[cir] Thermal solutions
[cir] Tooling
[cir] Other?

    3. A proposed National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program 
could be oriented to address multiple needs, including but not limited 
to prototyping, the provision of pilot lines, work force development, 
and supply chain development. Please describe the most critical needs 
on which the program should focus.
    4. What attributes are the most important for a National Advanced 
Packaging Manufacturing Program to deliver? Examples include but are 
not limited to:

[cir] ``Leading edge'' tools
[cir] Characterization services
[cir] Collaboration across multiple universities and multiple companies
[cir] Development of education and workforce development 
infrastructure, including building a pipeline of skilled workers
[cir] Easy to access facility, with different processes and tools
[cir] Expert resident staff for custom development
[cir] International participation
[cir] Intellectual property protection for inventors
[cir] Open access to intellectual property
[cir] Post fabrication infrastructure
[cir] Other?

    5. What factors are critical to enable a National Advanced 
Packaging Manufacturing Program to provide a successful packaging R&D 
hub(s)?
    6. Identify processes, equipment, measurement capabilities, 
environmental conditions, and training facilities that are most crucial 
for facilities provided by a National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing 
Program. How might organizations access such facilities?
    7. How closely aligned should the capabilities enabled by a 
National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program be with those 
provided by the NSTC?
    8. How should the National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program 
connect to National Network for Semiconductor R&D, authorized by Sec. 
9903 of the FY 2021 NDAA? What considerations should be given to ensure 
strong integration between the two efforts? Should there be overlap in 
the technology readiness levels served by each program?
    9. Describe anticipated needs in education and workforce 
development, including retraining and upskilling, in the semiconductor 
packaging area. How adequate is it currently, and what are future 
expectations of need? How should the workforce training pipeline be 
developed?

Semiconductor Workforce

    1. What are the greatest occupational or skills shortages facing 
employers in the semiconductor sector? What are the consequences of 
those shortages with respect to the domestic operation of employers in 
the sector? Considering all aspects of building, equipping, and running 
semiconductor manufacturing and R&D facilities, what actions have been 
taken to address these shortages, how effective have they been, and 
what gaps remain?
    2. What strategies have been most effective in addressing the 
shortages? Which states or countries have created the most effective 
strategies for different types of workforce needs to build, equip, and 
run semiconductor manufacturing and R&D facilities?
    What industry or other credentials do employers use, or could use, 
to train and hire workers to fill needed positions? To what extent do 
employers in the semiconductor sector partner with government 
institutions such as local workforce boards, economic development 
organizations, or Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers, or 
international partners to establish training and/or skill certification 
programs? To what extent do employers in the semiconductor sector 
partner with other employers to create joint training programs?
    3. What types of apprenticeship programs or existing partnerships 
involving workforce development issues in the semiconductor sector 
should the Department be aware of? What role can unionized labor play 
in worker training and workforce development, including for 
economically disadvantaged individuals?
    4. What have been successful mechanisms used by employers in the 
semiconductor sector to work with local high schools, career and 
technical education programs, community colleges, or universities to 
recruit and train workers?
    5. Are there any current or planned initiatives in the 
semiconductor sector to strengthen and expand the recruitment of women 
and underrepresented minorities, including promotion of such careers at 
K-12 levels?
    6. To what extent, and for what occupations, do organizations in 
the semiconductor sector use the H1-B Program to fill positions?
    7. Are there opportunities to design the semiconductor incentive 
program to ensure that worker skills shortages do not hinder companies 
from expanding operations?

Sreenivas Ramaswamy,
Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
[FR Doc. 2022-01305 Filed 1-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-20-P