[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62080-62084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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:
     Electronic submission: Submit electronic public comments 
via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
    1. Go to www.regulations.gov 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.
     Email: Comments in electronic form may also be sent to 
[email protected] 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 http://www.Regulations.gov and on NIST's website 
at https://www.nist.gov/oam/manufacturing-usa-semiconductor-institute-request-information-rfi. 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 https://www.nist.gov/oam/manufacturing-usa-semiconductor-institute-request-information-rfi.

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 [email protected]. 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\ https://semiengineering.com/expanding-advanced-packaging-production-in-the-u-s/.
    \2\ https://www.semiconductors.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Government-Incentives-and-US-Competitiveness-in-Semiconductor-Manufacturing-Sep-2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\ https://www.ept.ca/features/global-chip-shortage-a-timeline-of-unfortunate-events/.
    \4\ https://hbr.org/2021/02/why-were-in-the-midst-of-a-global-semiconductor-shortage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\ https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2022/01/results-semiconductor-supply-chain-request-information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $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;
     $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?
     Chip-package architectures and co-design of integrated 
circuits and advanced packaging. May include artificial intelligence, 
security, test methodologies, etc.
     Technologies to increase the microelectronics 
manufacturing productivity of American workers, lower costs and offset 
the drastic shortfall of skilled workers.
     Assembly and Test metrologies to develop new analytical 
equipment and analysis capabilities based upon standards.
     Coding and system software with novel computing paradigms 
and architectures, including chiplet compatibility with earlier 
generations.

[[Page 62083]]

     Integration of security into packaging, interposers and/or 
substrates.
     High Density Interposers and substrates, incorporating new 
materials and designs.
     Chiplet-enabled trusted packaging facilities that obviate 
the need for trusted foundries.
     New materials, such as glass for substrates, or compound 
semiconductors.
     Environmental Sustainability for semiconductor 
manufacturing.
     Analog and Gigahertz Technology materials and metrology, 
enabling beyond 5G, the Industrial Internet of Things and Industry 4.0.
     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 
(https://www.manufacturingusa.com/reports/national-network-manufacturing-innovation-preliminary-design). 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 (https://www.manufacturingusa.com/institutes), including those awarded funds for 
work related to semiconductor manufacturing, and other manufacturing 
related programs and networks such as the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership (https://www.nist.gov/mep) 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