Defense Industrial Base Assessment:

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design

and Fabrication Capability

 U.S. Department of Commerce

Bureau of Industry and Security

Office of Technology Evaluation

March 2009
DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE ASSESSMENT: 

U.S. INTEGRATED CIRCUIT FABRICATION AND 

DESIGN CAPABILITY

PREPARED BY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

May 2009 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT, CONTACT: 

Mark Crawford, Senior Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-8239 

Teresa Telesco, Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-4959 

Christopher Nelson, Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-4727 

Brad Botwin, Director, Industrial Base Studies, (202) 482-4060 

Email: bbotwin@bis.doc.gov

Fax: (202) 482-5361 

For more information about the Bureau of Industry and Security, please visit: 

http://bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms/
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... i 

BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................ iii 

SURVEY RESPONDENTS............................................................................................................... iv 

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... v 

REPORT FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................... 1 

CONVENTIONAL IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY....................................................... 1 

RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY............................................ 2 

CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION COMPANIES ...................... 3 

RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION COMPANIES ...... 4 

CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY ...................................................... 6 

RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY....................................... 7 

UTILIZATION RATES .................................................................................................................... 8 

FABRICATION AND DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY PRODUCTS ................................................. 9 

PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION CO............ 10 

PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION CO..................... 12 

PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABLESS COMPANIES .............. 12 

INDUSTRY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ....................................................................................... 13 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED EMPLOYMENT .................................................. 15 

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES............................................................................................................ 16 

REPORT DATA AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 18 

I. CONVENTIONAL IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY............................................ 18 

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE.................................................................................................. 19 

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 22 

FABRICATION CAPABILITY BY WAFER SIZE .......................................................................... 26 

DEVICE FABRICATION CAPABILITIES ..................................................................................... 28 

II. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY .............................. 32 

PREVIOUS RADIATION RESISTANT MANUFACTURING EXPERIENCE ....................................... 35 

WILLINGNESS TO MANUFACTURE FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ............................................ 36 

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE.................................................................................................. 38 

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 40 

FABRICATION CAPABILITY BY WAFER SIZE .......................................................................... 44 

DEVICE FABRICATION CAPABILITIES ..................................................................................... 45 

III. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION COMPANIES ...... 48 

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE.................................................................................................. 49 

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 50 

DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY ................................................................................................. 52 

IV. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION 

 COMPANIES ....................................................................................................................... 56 

PREVIOUS RADIATION RESISTANT DESIGN EXPERIENCE........................................................ 58 

WILLINGNESS TO MANUFACTURE FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ............................................ 60 

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE.................................................................................................. 61 

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 63 

DEVICE TYPE DESIGN CAPABILITY........................................................................................ 65 
V. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY........................................... 68 

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE.................................................................................................. 68 

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 71 

DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY ................................................................................................. 72 

VI. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY ........................ 76 

PREVIOUS RATION RESISTANT DESIGN EXPERIENCE ............................................................. 79 

WILLINGNESS TO MANUFACTURE FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ............................................ 80 

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE.................................................................................................. 82 

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 83 

DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY ................................................................................................. 84 

VII. UTILIZATION RATES........................................................................................................ 87 

WAFER START CAPACITY AND COMPANY UTILIZATION RATES............................................. 87 

FACILITY CLOSINGS BY 2011................................................................................................. 90 

VIII. FABRICATION AND DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY PRODUCTS ................................ 92 

FABRICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY-RELATED PRODUCTS ............................................... 92 

DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY-RELATED PRODUCTS......................................................... 93 

TRUSTED SUPPLIERS - BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 95 

OUTLOOK FOR TRUSTED SUPPLIERS ...................................................................................... 97 

IX. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION 

 COMPANIES ..................................................................................................................... 100 

U.S.-BASED MANUFACTURING STEPS ................................................................................. 100 

NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF MANUFACTURING STEPS ........................................................ 102 

OUTSOURCING BY TECHNOLOGY NODE AND MATERIAL TYPE ............................................ 104 

REASONS FOR OUTSOURCING .............................................................................................. 105 

RETENTION OF MANUFACTURING STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011.................................. 106 

PROJECTED U.S.-BASED AND NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING...................................................... 108 

X. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION 

 COMPANIES ....................................................................................................................... 111 

U.S.-BASED DESIGN STEPS.................................................................................................. 111 

NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN STEPS ........................................................................ 112 

RETENTION OF DESIGN STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011.................................................. 114 

XI. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABLESS COMPANIES119 

U.S.-BASED DESIGN STEPS.................................................................................................. 119 

NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN STEPS ........................................................................ 120 

RETENTION OF DESIGN STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011.................................................. 122 

PROJECTED U.S.-BASED AND NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING...................................................... 124 

XII. INDUSTRY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.......................................................................... 127 

FABRICATION NET SALES .................................................................................................... 128 

IC Design Net Sales............................................................................................................ 130 

CURRENT RATIO .................................................................................................................. 131 

XIII. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED EMPLOYMENT ................................. 136 

R&D EXPENDITURES BY COMPANY SIZE............................................................................. 140 

R&D EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION .................................................................................... 144 

SOURCES OF R&D FUNDING ................................................................................................ 149 

R&D EMPLOYMENT............................................................................................................. 152 

TOP COUNTRIES FOR R&D EXPENDITURES.......................................................................... 155 
XIV. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES............................................................................................. 159 

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES ...................................................... 160 

ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES............................ 162 

NON-U.S. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES...................................... 165 

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES .............................................................. 167 

ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES ................................... 169 

NON-U.S. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES ............................................. 172 

APPENDIX A: SURVEY AUTHORITY .......................................................................................... 175 

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................... 176 

APPENDIX C: LIST OF SUPPLIERS ACCREDITED BY THE DEFENSE MICROELECTRONICS 

 AGENCY (DMEA).............................................................................................................. 182 

APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT COVERAGE – SURVEY INSTRUMENT............................................ 183 

APPENDIX E: DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE ASSESSMENT: INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN 

 AND FABRICATION CAPABILITY SURVEY..........................................................188
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The capability to design and fabricate integrated circuit (IC) products is critical to the economic 

and national security of the United States. IC products are fundamental building blocks for 

commercial, industrial, and national security electronic systems. In recent years, there have been 

questions about the possible erosion of the U.S. manufacturing base and increasing reliance on 

offshore producers to supply microprocessors, memory chips, and other IC devices. 

In July 2007, the Department of Commerce’s (DOC) Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE) in 

the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), with support from the U.S. Department of Defense, 

initiated a study to assess U.S. IC design and fabrication capabilities. Forty-nine fabricators and 

106 fabless firms participated in an OTE survey and provided detailed information on their 

ability to create a range of conventional and radiation resistant IC devices across technology 

nodes, using standard and non-standard semiconductor materials. Data collected through the 

OTE survey covered the period of 2003 to 2006, with projections through 2011. 

Overall, companies reported broad capability in the United States to manufacture and design 

both conventional and radiation resistant ICs across almost all technology nodes, materials, 

wafer sizes, and device types. Based on projections through 2011, this core capability 

reportedly will be maintained despite some increases in outsourcing to non-U.S. locations. 

During the 2003-2006 period, U.S. manufacturing and design activity was supported by 

significant growth in corporate net sales, research and development (R&D) spending, and capital 

expenditures. The vast majority of R&D and capital expenditures was allocated to activities 

within the United States, with a small but growing portion directed to overseas operations. 

It is important to note that five large-size fabricators dominate most facets of the U.S. IC industry 

in terms of production, design, employment, and financial performance. However, small- and 

medium-size fabrication and fabless companies serving commercial and defense markets are 

important to the supply base. Much of the capability to manufacture radiation resistant ICs and 
ii

ICs using non-standard materials, which are required for critical industrial and national security 

applications, resides with these companies. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, in coordination with the Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, will review and 

report every two years on the following: 

• Changes in the health, competitiveness, and global operations of the top five large-size 

fabrication companies, which could have significant repercussions for the U.S. IC industry 

and national security because of these companies’ dominant positions in the industry; 

• Future activity in leading-edge IC production to assess any erosion or expansion of domestic 

capabilities, as few companies can currently fabricate ICs at the leading-edge technology 

nodes below 65 nm; 

• The state of domestic mask making capability, because there is currently minimal in-house 

production capability and outsourcing to non-U.S. companies is projected to increase; 

• The financial performance of the U.S. IC industry in order to assess the impact of the current 

global financial situation on the stability of the domestic IC industry, particularly on smalland medium-size IC fabrication and design companies. 
iii

BACKGROUND

This defense industrial base assessment was initiated by the Bureau of Industry and Security to 

provide a comprehensive overview of the U.S. design and fabrication infrastructure available for 

manufacturing Integrated Circuit (IC) products now and in the future. ICs are used to meet U.S. 

national security and other defense critical requirements, as well as commercial/industrial needs. 

On a world-wide basis, IC production totaled $257 billion in 2007, with U.S. producers 

accounting for $118 billion or 46 percent of output.1

Over the past decade, questions have been raised by a number of industry and governmentsponsored entities regarding the state of U.S. IC design and fabrication capabilities, with some 

attention being focused on facility shutdowns and the addition of new production capacity 

offshore. For example, a February 2005 report issued by the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task 

Force on High Performance Microchip Supply, in particular, warned of significant erosion of 

U.S. IC technical, human capital, and manufacturing advantages to foreign countries, and of the 

negative strategic consequences of such trends continuing in the future. 2 

For the U.S. national security community, the central problem associated with this diminishing 

capability to design and fabricate IC products is a lessening of trustworthiness in components 

used in critical applications.3 This concern has several dimensions, including the quality of 

component manufacturing, protection of design intellectual property, and assurance that 

component function is not compromised by design changes made in unsecured settings. The 

DSB report stated that the United States must retain leading edge IC design and fabrication 

capability in order to maintain technological advantage in weapon systems and other national 

security products.4 

 

1

 Semiconductor Industry Assn., April 29, 2008. www.sia-online.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=474 2

 See the Defense Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply report, December 2005, Office 

of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, U.S. Department of Defense. 3

 IBID; also see Office of the Secretary of Defense Research, Development, Technology, and Engineering Budget 

Item Justification (R2 Exhibit) February 2006, p. 412. 

4

 See the Defense Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply report, December 2005, Office 

of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, U.S. Department of Defense, p. 12 and p. 47. 
iv

The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of 

Technology Evaluation (OTE) performed this assessment in cooperation with the U.S. 

Department of Defense (DOD), Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial 

Policy. Extensive input was also provided by IC experts in government, industry, and academia. 

Initiated in August 2007, the assessment’s overall goal is to provide decision-makers in both 

industry and government with: (1) the status of conventional and radiation-resistant IC 

fabrication and design capabilities in the United States; (2) information on domestic and foreign 

outsourcing of IC design and fabrication capabilities; (3) detailed information on the financial 

health of fabrication and fabless companies, including capital investment and research and 

development spending; and (4) the outlook for maintaining domestic design and fabrication 

activities in the future. 

This report, based almost exclusively on the comprehensive survey data collected from industry, 

government, and university facilities, also provides background support by way of facilityspecific information for the defense community’s management and procurement of electronic 

components and systems, including the Defense Department’s Trusted Foundry Program for ICs 

and printed circuit boards. 

SURVEY RESPONDENTS

A total of 155 surveys were received, representing responses from 106 U.S. IC design/fabless 

companies and 49 U.S. IC manufacturing/fabrication companies. Survey respondents were 

designated as fabrication or fabless companies based upon their capabilities in the United States. 

Fabrication companies are those that have IC manufacturing operations in the United States; 

most of these companies also have significant design capabilities. Fabless companies only have 

IC design capability in the United States. Although these companies may have fabrication 

operations overseas, from an OTE perspective they are considered fabless. 

These 155 responses represent more than 379 facilities in the United States. Data collected from 

the 49 fabrication firms covers the operations of more than 90 facilities located in 23 states; 45 of 

the 49 companies have related design capabilities. In addition, OTE surveyed three government 

facilities (two have both design/fabrication capabilities; one design only) and five university 
v

facilities (all have both design/fabrication capabilities).5

 Data supplied by respondents covered 

their operations for 2003-2007 period, and included projections on future fabrication and design 

capability through 2011. 

The capabilities of IC fabrication companies were analyzed based on their net sales: small-size 

companies had net sales of less than $100 million; medium-size companies had net sales of $100 

million to $1 billion; and large-size companies had net sales exceeding $1 billion. The 

capabilities of IC fabless firms were also analyzed based on their net sales: small-size companies 

had net sales of less than $25 million; medium-size companies had net sales of $25 to $350 

million; and large-size companies had net sales greater than $350 million. 

METHODOLOGY

Working with industry and government experts, OTE created a survey questionnaire to assess 

both IC fabrication and design capabilities in the U.S for the period 2003-2006, with projections 

to 2011.6 The resulting draft OTE survey was field tested for accuracy and usability with a 

variety of fabrication and fabless firms, as well as government facilities. Once comments were 

received and incorporated into the survey instrument, the document was formally sent to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval as required under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

After receiving OMB approval, OTE disseminated the survey to fabrication and fabless 

companies, government facilities, and universities. Data collected through the survey was 

supplemented with OTE staff site visits to a number of design and manufacturing facilities, 

interviews with industry and government experts, participation in IC-related conferences and 

technical sessions, and reviews of previous studies of the U.S. and global IC industry. 

 

5

 Results on government and university facilities were not included due to the proprietary nature of the limited 

number of responses. 

6

 A copy of the Defense Industrial Base Assessment: U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability 

survey questionnaire is included in Appendix E.
1

REPORT FINDINGS7

I. CONVENTIONAL IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY

Fabrication companies were asked to report on their fabrication capabilities for the 2003 – 2006 

period. The 49 companies that reported data operated more than 90 fabrication facilities in the 

United States in 2006 that were capable of making conventional IC products. 

Almost all of these companies (45), can manufacture IC products with technology nodes between 

10,000 nanometers (nm) and 250 nm. Approximately half of the companies (22) can make ICs 

in the United States with technology nodes from 250 nm - 65 nm. A significantly smaller 

number of firms, six, can make IC products at dimensions below 65 nm, and just three of them 

have commercial-volume capability for 45 nm and 32 nm dimensions. 

Most of the 49 fabrication companies manufacture IC products using three standard silicon 

materials: bulk silicon (35 companies), silicon-on-insulator (19 companies), and silicon geranium 

(11 companies). Substantially fewer companies can manufacture using seven non-standard 

materials, which are required for some high-performance IC products. For example, 15 

companies can manufacture ICs using gallium arsenide and 11 companies can manufacture ICs 

using gallium nitride materials. Company capability diminishes with more exotic materials such 

as antimonides (7), silicon-on-sapphire (4), and silicon carbide (3). Much of the capability to 

manufacture ICs using non-standard materials, which are important to the performance of some 

national security ICs, resides with small- and medium-size companies. 

The bulk of IC manufacturing capacity is concentrated in facilities using 4-inch (21 companies), 

6-inch (35 companies), and 8-inch wafers (25 companies). Eight U.S. fabricators, mostly largesize companies, reported operating 14 facilities capable of manufacturing ICs on 12-inch wafers. 

The capability to manufacture ICs on 2-or-3 inch wafers resides with small- and medium-size 

companies. 

 

7 This section is based on the Report Data and Analysis portion of this document, which explores each of the finding 

categories in extensive detail.
2

U.S. fabrication companies can manufacture a wide array of IC devices ranging from memory 

products and microprocessors to custom application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) to field 

programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). Companies of all sizes can manufacture these IC devices. 

II. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY

In addition to conventional IC products, fabrication companies were asked to identify their 

abilities to manufacture radiation resistant IC products for the 2003 – 2006 period.8 Twenty-six 

of 49 fabrication companies in the United States reported they can produce one or more types of 

radiation resistant IC products: 16 are capable of making single-event effects resistant ICs; 15 

can produce radiation tolerant ICs; 12 can produce radiation hardened ICs; and eight companies 

can fabricate neutron hardened ICs. A majority of this fabrication capability rests within smalland medium-size companies, eight and 12 respectively, with only six large-size companies able 

to do so. 

Nine of the fabrication companies reported having previous experience manufacturing all four 

types of radiation resistant ICs, but do not currently perform such work. The majority of these 

companies, four, were large-size firms. 

Twenty-eight fabrication companies indicated a willingness to manufacture radiation resistant 

ICs for the U.S. Government. Of these companies, 15 currently manufacture radiation resistant 

IC products. The majority of companies (25) were interested in producing radiation tolerant ICs 

for the U.S. Government. 

The capability of the 26 fabrication companies that manufacture radiation resistant IC products is 

largely concentrated in three ranges of technology nodes: 10,000 nm - 1,000 nm (14 companies), 

 

8

 Due to evolving refinements in the IC manufacturing process, which cause some commercial IC products to 

become unintentionally radiation hardened, the U.S. Department of State transferred control of exports of IC 

products at lower radiation hardened thresholds to the U.S. Department of Commerce on July 17th, 2007. For more 

information, see 72 Federal Register 136. 
3

1,000 nm - 250 nm (19 companies), and 250 nm - 65 nm (16 companies). Four companies, three 

of them large in size, can fabricate radiation resistant ICs at dimensions smaller than 65 nm. 

Bulk silicon is the standard semiconductor material most frequently employed by fabricators 

producing radiation resistant IC products, with 21 companies reporting capability to manufacture 

product using it. Eleven companies can use silicon-on-insulator and five are able to manufacture 

with silicon germanium. With the exception of gallium nitride, fewer than six companies are 

able to fabricate radiation resistant IC product using non-standard materials; none of these 

companies are large-size fabricators. 

Most capability to manufacture radiation resistant IC products resides in fabrication facilities 

using 4-inch (14 companies), 6-inch (18 companies), and 8-inch (12 companies). Only three 

companies reported a capability to manufacture radiation resistant products on 12-inch wafers, 

all of them classified as large-size IC manufacturers. 

Twenty-one of the 26 companies can fabricate custom ASIC radiation resistant IC products. 

There is less fabrication capability for other kinds of radiation resistant IC devices. Small-, 

medium-, and large-size fabrication companies have diverse capabilities across all device types. 

III. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION COMPANIES

Fabrication companies were also asked to report on their design capabilities for the 2003 - 2006 

period. Forty-five of the 49 companies that reported data had in-house capability to design IC 

products in 2006, although this capability varied by company and facility. 

Thirty-two fabrication companies can design ICs with technology nodes in the 10,000 nm - 1,000 

nm range, 36 are able to design for the 1,000 nm - 250 nm range, and 32 are able to design for 

250 nm - 65 nm range. Nine fabricators are able to design IC products using leading-edge 

technology nodes (45 nm and 32 nm). Most of this capability is held by six large-size IC 

fabricators. 
4

The design capability of fabricators is focused primarily in products using standard silicon 

materials: bulk silicon (37 companies), silicon-on-insulator (26 companies), or silicon geranium 

(17 companies). The design capabilities of fabricators decrease for IC products employing nonstandard materials. For example, 13 of 49 companies reported design capability for ICs using 

gallium arsenide material, while three are able to design devices using antimonides material. 

U.S. fabricators are capable of designing a wide variety of IC products, including custom chips, 

memory devices, and processors. More than 70 percent of fabricators surveyed are able to 

design mixed signal ICs and custom ASICs. Capability resides in 17 companies to make static 

random access memory (SRAM), but only four fabricator design houses can produce dynamic 

random access memory (DRAM) devices. Sixteen fabricators can design for nonvolatile 

memory ICs. 

IV. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION 

COMPANIES

In addition to conventional IC products, fabrication companies were asked to identify their 

abilities to design radiation resistant IC products for the 2003 – 2006 period. Thirty-one of 49 

fabrication companies have experience designing one or more types of radiation resistant IC 

products: 18 are capable of designing single-event effects resistant ICs; 14 can design radiation 

tolerant ICs; 10 can design radiation hardened ICs, and nine companies can design neutron 

hardened ICs. Fifteen of these manufacturers are medium-size, eight are small-size, and eight 

are large-size companies. 

Across all four types of radiation resistant ICs, a majority of design capability is found in smalland medium-size companies. Only five large-size companies can design single-event effects 

resistant ICs, two can design radiation tolerant ICs, one can design radiation hardened ICs, and 

two can design neutron hardened ICs. Design capability is nearly equal between and small- and 

medium-size companies for all four types of radiation resistant products. 
5

Twenty-one companies have previous experience designing radiation resistant ICs, but do not 

currently perform such work. Eight companies each no longer design single event effects 

resistant, radiation tolerant, and neutron hardened ICs, while six companies no longer design 

radiation hardened ICs. 

Thirty-four companies are willing to design radiation resistant products for the U.S. Government, 

including 12 companies that did not indicate that they have previous experience doing so. There 

was a relatively even level of interest across companies, regardless of size, in designing radiation 

resistant ICs for the U.S. Government. 

There are significant differences in the ability of the 31 fabrication companies to design radiation 

resistant products across the range of technology nodes. Fifteen companies reported capability to 

design IC products with circuit feature sizes ranging from 10,000 nm - 1,000 nm; 22 companies 

have capability to design ICs from 1,000 nm - 250 nm; and 24 companies are able to design ICs 

at dimensions of 250 nm - 65 nm. Seven companies, mostly large-size firms, can design 

radiation resistant ICs with circuit feature dimensions smaller than 65 nm. 

Fabrication company design capability for radiation resistant IC products is concentrated in 

standard semiconductor materials. Of the 31 companies with this capability, 23 reported they 

can design devices based on bulk silicon; 13 can design devices using silicon-on-insulator; and 

10 can design for silicon germanium material. 

There is limited capability across fabrication companies to design radiation resistant ICs using 

non-standard materials. Small- and medium-size companies are the sole providers of design for 

radiation resistant ICs using non-standard materials. 

Significant capability exists among the 31 fabricators that have experience in designing radiation 

resistant ICs to create a wide variety of products. Twenty-three companies reported the 

capability to design custom ASIC products. In contrast, nine companies can design standard cell 

ASICs and eight can design structured ASICs. Capability to design radiation resistant gate array 

ICs varies. Sixteen companies are able to design one-time electronically programmable gate 
6

array (EPGA) products while nine are able to design FPGA products. Fourteen fabricators are 

able to design radiation resistant SRAM products, but only one company can design DRAM ICs. 

V. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY

Fabless companies, those firms that only have design capability in the United States, were asked 

to report on their design capabilities for the 2003 - 2006 period. The 106 fabless companies that 

reported data showed significant capability to design a wide range of products in 2006. The vast 

majority of fabless companies (65) are small-size companies, while 27 are medium-size 

companies and 14 are large-size companies. 

The capability of the 106 fabless companies surveyed spans all technology nodes. Most of their 

design capability, however, is concentrated in two technology ranges: 51 companies can design 

product in the 1,000 nm - 250 nm range, and 76 companies have design capability at nodes 

between 250 nm - 65 nm. For the technology nodes of 10,000 nm - 1,000 nm, 21 companies 

reported capability. Twenty-three fabless companies stated they can work at technology nodes 

below 65 nm. Most of this capability (71 percent) is held within large-size fabless companies. 

Much of the design capability of fabless companies is concentrated in three standard silicon 

materials: bulk silicon (88 companies), silicon-on-insulator (13 companies), or silicon 

germanium (19 companies). Only a small number of fabless companies can design product 

employing non-standard materials, which are required for some high-performance IC products. 

Seven companies can design ICs using gallium arsenide, and 11 can design ICs using gallium 

nitride materials. The number of companies with capability diminishes with more exotic 

materials such as antimonides (7), silicon-on-sapphire (4), or silicon carbide (1). 

U.S. fabless companies possess capability to design a broad selection of IC devices. Of the 106 

companies queried, 63 are able to design mixed signal technology devices and 57 can design 

custom ASIC products. Twenty-eight companies can create microprocessor designs. Fewer 
7

fabless IC design companies can design memory products. For example, 16 have SRAM 

capability, eight can design nonvolatile memory, and seven can design DRAM product designs. 

VI. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY

In addition to conventional IC products, design companies were asked to identify their abilities 

to design radiation resistant IC products in the 2003 – 2006 period. Only 19 of 106 fabless IC 

companies can design radiation resistant products: 14 firms are capable of designing single-event 

effects resistant ICs, nine can design radiation tolerant ICs, eight can design radiation hardened 

ICs, and six companies can develop neutron hardened ICs. 

The capability to design radiation resistant IC products is held by eight small-size, six mediumsize, and five large-size companies. Four small-, six medium-, and four large-size firms can 

design single-event effects resistant ICs. One small-, six medium-, and two large-size fabless 

companies can design radiation tolerant product, while radiation hardened ICs can be designed 

by one small-, five medium-, and one large-size fabless company. Of the six fabless firms 

capable of designing neutron-hardened ICs, two are small-, three are medium-, and one is largesize. 

Five companies reported having previous experience designing radiation resistant ICs, but do not 

currently perform such work. This previous experience is largely concentrated in small-size 

companies, though large-size companies did report previous capability across all four types of 

radiation resistant devices. Medium-size companies did not indicate any previous capability. 

Twenty-three companies, mostly small- and medium-size, indicated they are willing to design 

radiation resistant products for the U.S. Government. This includes nine companies that did not 

indicate having previous experience. 

The capability of the 19 fabless companies that can design radiation resistant IC products spans 

all technology nodes. Most of their design capability, however, is concentrated in two 
8

technology ranges: 13 companies reported capability for the technology nodes spanning 1,000 

nm - 250 nm, and 17 reported capability product in the 250 nm - 65 nm range. Nine companies 

are able to design ICs for technology nodes between 10,000 nm and 1,000 nm, and nine fabless 

companies can design products with circuit features below 65 nm. The latter capability resides 

in one small-, three medium-, and five large-size fabless companies. 

Fabless company capability to design radiation resistant ICs is concentrated in products using 

standard semiconductor materials. Sixteen of the 19 companies can design products using bulk 

silicon, seven can design ICs using silicon-on-insulator, and three can design ICs using silicon 

germanium. The ability of fabless companies to design radiation resistant ICs using nonstandard materials is very limited. Most of this capability is centered in medium-size fabless 

companies. 

Significant capability exists among the 19 fabless companies to design radiation resistant ICs. 

The majority of fabless design ability for these products rests with medium- and large-size 

companies. The greatest IC design ability is for custom ASIC products, with 15 companies able 

to undertake this work. In contrast, only six companies design standard cell ASICs and five 

design structured ASICs. Capability to design radiation resistant gate array ICs varies. Thirteen 

companies are able to design one-time Electronically Programmable Gate Arrays (EPGAs) while 

nine are able to design Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs). Eight fabless companies are 

able to design radiation resistant SRAM product, but only four companies can design DRAM 

products. 

VII. UTILIZATION RATES

Average utilization rates of fabrication facilities operating in the United States for years 2003-

2007 showed steady increases overall. Large-size companies saw facility utilization climb from 

78 percent in 2004 to 90 percent in 2006 before falling in 2007 to 81 percent. Utilization rates 

for medium-size companies rose from 72 percent to 82 percent in 2007. Small-size companies 

experienced a rise in utilization rates, but relative to bigger competitors operated at significantly 
9

lower levels ranging from 47 percent in 2004 to 52 percent in 2006, before slipping to 50 percent 

in 2007. 

Most IC wafer processing capacity in the United States is held by large-size fabricators, which 

collectively had a maximum capacity to process 291,262 wafers per week in 2007. Medium-size 

companies have a fraction of the processing capacity of large-size fabricators, approximately 

54,811 wafer starts per week in 2007. Small-size companies operated at far less processing 

capacity – 11,947 wafer starts per week in 2007. 

Fabricators project there will be two fewer fabrication facilities (net) operating in the United 

States in 2011 than there were in 2006. Medium-size companies expect to close three wafer 

processing facilities by 2011, and large-size companies plan to close four facilities. Small-size 

companies plan to close two facilities. At the same time fabricators indicated they would build 

at least seven new fabrication facilities in the United States; small-size fabricators plan to add at 

least four of those seven new facilities. 

VIII. FABRICATION AND DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY PRODUCTS

Twenty-three of the 49 fabricators surveyed manufactured IC products used for national securityrelated applications in 2007.9

 Eighteen companies reported that this work now occupies 10 

percent or less of their capacity. Nineteen companies are willing to dedicate more production 

capacity to national security-related work. Fifteen of the 49 companies surveyed are not willing 

manufacture ICs for national security applications. Eleven other fabricators reported that they 

are willing to start accepting orders to produce ICs for national security applications under the 

appropriate financial conditions. 

 

9

 Access to commercial IC design and fabrication capabilities in the United States is important for the Department of 

Defense (DOD) and other federal agencies to maintain and upgrade the capabilities of existing defense systems, as 

well as to produce critical parts for future national security applications. See Joint U.S. Defense Science Board/UK 

Defense Scientific Advisory Council - Task Force on Defense Critical Technologies, March 2006, p. 67. 
10

Eighteen fabrication companies also perform IC design work for national security-related 

products; the activity accounts for more than 50 percent of their design work. Sixteen fabrication 

companies indicated they would undertake work designing national security-related products if 

given an opportunity. Another 15 companies declared they were not interested in this kind of 

work. 

Fourteen of the 106 fabless companies currently perform design work for national securityrelated IC products. Of these, five allocate more than 50 percent of their capacity for this 

purpose. Forty fabless design companies not now engaged in developing IC products for 

national security applications indicated they would consider taking on such work. 

Nine fabrication companies are accredited as trusted suppliers to the Department of Defense.10 

Fifteen additional fabrication and six fabless companies are now seeking or plan to seek U.S. 

Government certification as a trusted supplier. Eleven fabrication and 18 fabless companies 

have reviewed federal requirements to be trusted suppliers and concluded they would be able to 

comply, but have not been certified at this time. 

Some companies have not pursued national security-related IC product fabrication and design 

work because they do not have adequate knowledge of the opportunities or do not comprehend 

the requirements and associated costs. Others are concerned that working with federal agencies 

would be too complicated, or that the order volume and predictability for national security work 

is too uncertain. 

IX. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION 

COMPANIES

U.S. IC fabricators retain significant in-house capability to perform seven IC manufacturing 

steps (mask making, wafer manufacturing [front-end and back-end], wafer sorting, circuit 

testing, packaging, and final testing), although capability to perform the mask making and 

packaging steps is much smaller. 

 

10 For a full explanation of the trusted supplier program, see Section VIII of the Report Data. 
11

Fabrication companies only utilize a small number of U.S.-based vendors for six of the seven 

key manufacturing steps. However, more than 71 percent of the fabrication companies, or 35 

firms, utilize other U.S.-based vendors for the mask making manufacturing step. 

Outside of the United States, fabrication companies tend to outsource to non-U.S., non-affiliated 

facilities more often than to non-U.S. facilities they own and operate, although companies still 

use a significant number of their own non-U.S. facilities to perform select IC processing steps. 

Only five fabrication companies utilize non-U.S. facilities they own and operate for mask 

making, while 17 use non-U.S., non-affiliated facilities for this manufacturing step. Since so few 

fabrication companies perform mask making in their own facilities, fabrication companies 

largely rely on both domestic and non-U.S. outsourced support for this operation. 

Fabrication companies, in addition to maintaining domestic capabilities, outsource 

manufacturing steps across all technology nodes, with the 1,000 nm – 250 nm and the 250 nm – 

65 nm ranges being the most common. Of the six fabrication companies that can manufacture at 

less than 65 nm, five outsource manufacturing steps for this technology node range. 

The majority of outsourced manufacturing steps (88 percent) are conducted in Asia, with Taiwan 

and China being the most prominent locations. Six percent of outsourced manufacturing steps are 

conducted in Europe, and three percent are conducted in Canada and Mexico. 

Most U.S. fabrication companies expect to maintain capability to perform each of the seven IC 

manufacturing steps at their U.S.-based operations through 2011. A slight decrease in the 

number of companies capable of in-house production is anticipated for each of the seven 

manufacturing steps. The majority of fabricators expect to maintain or increase their level of 

capability for each manufacturing step through 2011, with mask making being the only step 

where there is no planned increase in capability level. 
12

The number of companies that anticipate outsourcing manufacturing steps to U.S.-based vendors 

is projected to remain steady through 2011. However, the overall level of manufacturing step 

capability they outsource is anticipated to increase. 

X. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION 

COMPANIES

More than half of U.S. fabricators are capable of performing all seven key IC design functions 

(digital, analog, RTL design, synthesis, physical layout, function verification, and test vector 

generation) in their domestic facilities. While most fabrication companies do not outsource any 

design steps to U.S.-based vendors, 20 fabricators outsource design work to varying degrees to 

non-U.S. locations. Most of these companies, however, outsource to non-U.S. facilities they 

own and operate. Relatively few fabricators reported outsourcing design functions to nonaffiliated, non-U.S. facilities. 

China and India are the prime locations for design work outsourced by fabricators, although 

France, Japan, and Taiwan also are significant service providers. As a region, European 

countries are more prevalent destinations for the outsourcing of design operations by fabricators, 

representing 35 percent of outsourcing operations. 

Most U.S. fabricators expect that they will still retain most, if not all of the domestic IC design 

capabilities, from 2006 through 2011. Three companies acknowledged that their abilities will 

diminish by 2011 in the digital, analog, and synthesis design functions; 18 fabricators plan to 

strengthen in-house design capability through 2011. Fifteen fabricators plan to increase 

outsourcing of one or more design functions to United States and non-U.S. locations by 2011. 

XI. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABLESS COMPANIES

Eighty-one of 106 fabless companies have capability to perform all seven major design steps 

(digital, analog, RTL design, synthesis, physical layout, function verification, and test vector 
13

generation) in their domestic facilities. Twenty-one fabless companies outsource portions of 

their design work to U.S.-based vendors, with analog and test vector generation being the most 

frequently cited. 

Forty-nine fabless firms report outsourcing one or more design functions to non-U.S. locations, 

but mostly to facilities they own and operate. Approximately 20 percent of fabless companies 

outsource one or more design steps to non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities. In addition, 

approximately 20 percent of fabless companies outsource design steps to both non-U.S. facilities 

they own and operate and to non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities. Countries most cited by U.S. 

fabless companies for performing outsourced IC design work are: India, Taiwan, China, United 

Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. 

Almost all of the 81 fabless companies reporting capability to perform all seven design steps 

expect to retain this ability through 2011. Nearly 50 percent of those fabless design companies 

expect to strengthen their design capabilities between now and 2011. Most fabless companies 

will retain or expand current capability levels. A significant number of companies also plan to 

expand outsourcing of design steps between now and 2011. 

XII. INDUSTRY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

The 49 IC fabrication companies and 106 fabless companies surveyed experienced steady growth 

in net sales for the 2003-2006 period. Combined net sales rose from $81.4 billion to $116 billion 

over four years, an average annual increase of 19.3 percent. 

Fabricators in total accounted for 75 percent of net sales on average for the four-year period. Net 

sales climbed from $62 billion in 2003 to $83.5 billion in 2006, an average annual increase of 

10.6 percent. Ten large-size companies generated 90 percent of IC fabricator net sales over the 

reporting period; five large-size fabricators dominate U.S. IC production, accounting for $65.2 

million in net sales in 2006, or 86 percent of all net sales of large-size companies surveyed. Net 
14

sales of 20 medium-size companies in 2006 represented nine percent of total industry sales, 

while net sales of 19 small-size IC fabricators represented one percent. 

Net sales for 106 reporting fabless IC companies increased rapidly from 2003-2006, rising from 

$19.3 billion to $32.8 billion. As with IC fabricators, 14 large-size fabless companies dominated 

their segment of the market, generating 90 percent of net revenues in 2006. Net sales by 27 

medium-size companies in 2006 totaled $2.9 billion, just less than nine percent of total fabless 

IC company net sales. Sixty-five small-size companies reported collective net sales of $500 

million. 

For the four-year period, fabricator and fabless IC design companies had an average combined 

current ratio score of 2.77.11 This means the industry’s overall assets are more than double its 

liabilities, and it could theoretically pay its debts with its existing resources. Their combined 

current ratio scores decreased from 2.88 in 2003 to 2.71 in 2006. 

Fabrication companies had an average current ratio score of 2.56. Their combined current ratio 

scores declined over the 2003-2006 period from 2.75 to 2.38, reflecting sliding performance in 

some large-size companies. Small-size fabrication companies experienced an increase in their 

current ratios from 2.65 in 2003 to 3.79 in 2006. 

Fabless companies had an average current ratio score of 3.37. Their combined current ratio 

scores increased from 3.26 in 2003 to 3.51 in 2006. Improvements in current ratio scores is 

attributed to gains in financial performance of large- and medium-size fabless companies. 

Small-size fabless companies as a group experienced a decline in current ratio scores from 4.73 

in 2003 to 2.7 in 2006. 

 

11 A company’s current ratio measures its ability to pay its debts with its existing resources over a twelve-month 

period. It is calculated by dividing current assets by current liabilities. 
15

XIII. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED EMPLOYMENT

R&D spending by fabrication and fabless companies grew substantially from 2003 to 2006, 

rising from $14.8 billion to $19.9 billion – a 34 percent increase. Seventy-one percent of the 

$19.9 billion in R&D expenditures reported in 2006 was made by fabricators. 

Fabricator R&D spending as a group rose 28 percent from $11.1 billion to $14.1 billion for the 

2003-2006 period. Most R&D spending by fabricators is attributable to the top five companies. 

Their expenditures of $10.8 billion in 2006 accounted for 76 percent of the $14.1 billion in R&D 

funding reported. 

Of the $14.1 billion spent on four R&D functions in 2006 by fabricators, $6.6 billion (49 

percent) was focused on product development; $3.9 billion was spent by just five large-size 

companies. Spending on process development in 2006 accounted for about 28 percent of all 

R&D spending. 

R&D expenditures by fabless companies increased between 2003 and 2006, rising from $3.8 

billion to $5.8 billion. Of the $5.8 billion in R&D investment made by fabless IC design 

companies in 2006, $4.5 billion (79 percent) is attributable to the 10 largest fabless design firms. 

Medium-size fabless companies allocated $1.4 billion to R&D in 2006. R&D expenditures by 

small-size companies totaled $77 million, or one percent of R&D spending. 

Of the $5.8 billion spent on four R&D functions in 2006 by fabless companies, $3.1 billion (55 

percent) of it was focused on product development. Applied research also commanded 

substantial R&D support, claiming 38 percent of all R&D funding in 2006. 

Fabrication and fabless companies obtained 95 percent of R&D funding from parent company 

and/or internal corporate resources in 2006. External funding from U.S. private entities totaled 

2.3 percent of 2006 R&D funding, while funding from foreign sources represented 1.9 percent. 

Federal and local government support for IC R&D in 2006 was less than one percent of R&D 

spending. 
16

There was substantial growth in R&D staffs employed by fabrication and fabless companies in 

the 2003-2006 period; total employment increased from 83,000 to 95,000 positions. Fabricators 

account for the majority of R&D employment, which increased 12 percent from 60,000 to more 

than 67,000 positions from 2003 through 2006. R&D employment is concentrated in large-size 

fabrication companies, which in 2006 accounted for 57,000 positions. 

Fabless companies' R&D staffing levels rose from just over 23,000 to nearly 28,000 positions. 

Most R&D employment in fabless firms occurs in large-size companies, which in 2006 

employed nearly 22,000 people. 

Non-U.S. countries were recipients of $3.1 billion or 16 percent of total R&D expenditures by 

U.S. fabrication and fabless companies in 2006. This non-U.S. funding increased at an average 

rate of 19 percent for the 2003-2006 period. Fabrication companies were responsible for $2.19 

billion in non-U.S. R&D spending in 2006, 66 percent of the total; fabless company R&D 

spending outside the United States totaled $880 million. Expenditures for R&D conducted at 

non-U.S. locations in 2006 were concentrated in five countries: Israel ($728 million); India 

($464 million); Germany ($386 million); France ($270 million); and Malaysia ($190 million). 

XIV. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

Capital spending by U.S. fabrication and fabless companies rose rapidly from 2003 to 2006, 

climbing from $8.3 billion to $14.7 billion. Fabrication companies spending accounted for 89 

percent of the total, increasing from $7.5 billion in 2003 to $13 billion in 2006. As a percent of 

net sales, capital expenditures by fabricators during this period jumped from 12 percent in 2003 

to 16 percent in 2006. Expenditures by large-size fabricators accounted for $12.3 billion of the 

$13 billion total capital spending by fabricators in 2006. 

Fabless companies devote a small portion of net sales to capital spending. For 2003-2006, 

capital spending by fabless companies averaged 5.5 percent. Capital spending increased from 
17

$817 million to $1.57 billion over the four-year period. Large-size fabless companies fueled the 

majority of growth in capital spending, boosting expenditures from $700 million in 2003 to $1.3 

billion in 2006. 

For 2006, U.S. IC fabricators allocated $3.9 billion to non-U.S. capital investment, an increase of 

$1.25 billion from 2003 levels. Non-U.S. locations receiving this capital investment from 

fabricators included Ireland ($528 million), Singapore ($493 million), Malaysia ($348 million), 

Philippines ($274 million), Japan ($223 million), China ($189 million), and Thailand ($123 

million). 

U.S. fabless companies increased capital spending in non-U.S. locations from $98 million in 

2003 to $417 million in 2006. In 2006, the destinations for non-U.S. capital investment by 

fabless companies included Japan ($123 million), Thailand ($96 million), India ($31 million), 

China ($26 million), Singapore ($16 million), Korea ($4 million) and Taiwan ($3 million). 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, in coordination with the Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, will review and 

report every two years on the following: 

• Changes in the health, competitiveness, and global operations of the top five large-size 

fabrication companies, which could have significant repercussions for the U.S. IC industry 

and national security because of these companies’ dominant positions in the industry; 

• Future activity in leading-edge IC production to assess any erosion or expansion of domestic 

capabilities, as few companies can currently fabricate ICs at the leading-edge technology 

nodes below 65 nm; 

• The state of domestic mask making capability, because there currently is minimal in-house 

production capability and outsourcing to non-U.S. companies is projected to increase; 

• The financial performance of the U.S. IC industry in order to assess the impact of the current 

global financial situation on the stability of the domestic IC industry, particularly on smalland medium-size IC fabrication and design companies. 
18

REPORT DATA AND ANALYSIS

I. CONVENTIONAL IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY

To assess the state of IC fabrication capability in the United States, OTE surveyed 49 fabrication 

companies. Responses were requested on a facility basis, and data was provided for more than 

90 facilities.12 Fabricators were categorized as small-, medium-, and large-size based on average 

net sales from 2003 – 2006 (see Figure I-1). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Total 49 -

Size Number of Companies Net Sales 

Figure I-1: Total Number of Fabrication Companies 

Manufacturing Conventional IC Products

Medium 20 $100 million - $1 billion

Large 10 Greater than $1 billion

Small 19 Less than $100 million

Fabrication companies were asked whether they can manufacture ICs with circuit feature sizes 

ranging from 10,000 nanometers (nm) to less than 32 nm, a range encompassing most major 

industry technology nodes.13 In addition, OTE requested companies to provide detailed 

information on the types of IC devices they are capable of producing. Survey participants also 

specified the types of semiconductor materials they could employ in manufacturing IC products. 

Besides standard silicon formulations (bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium), 

fabricators were queried on their ability to manufacture products using gallium arsenide, gallium 

nitride, indium phosphate, and other non-standard materials. Finally, manufacturers were asked 

to identify capability in terms of the size of semiconductor wafers (e.g. 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, 12-inch 

diameter) their fabrication plants can process. The larger the wafer size, the greater the number 

of ICs produced from a single wafer processing cycle.14 

 

12 Certain companies were permitted by OTE to consolidate facility responses. 

13 Responses indicating an ability to manufacture at a given technology node, semiconductor chemistry, or device 

type does not mean the company is actually producing product at this time. 

14 IC design patterns are imaged onto silicon wafers coated with light-sensitive films and are etched. Once a wafer 

is fully processed, IC die or “chips” are cut from the wafer, which can hold hundreds of copies of an IC product. 
19

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE

A technology node, sometimes referred to as a “process node” or “process technology,” indicates 

the smallest circuit feature size that can be drawn on a chip with a microlithography tool. Most 

commonly measured in nanometers (nm), technology nodes are generally accepted 

manufacturing benchmarks used by fabricators. Circuit feature dimensions dictate how much 

circuitry can be placed in a given area on a microchip. As technology nodes step down, circuit 

lines can be placed closer together, allowing for the manufacture of more complex devices and 

enabling enhanced performance. 

For the purposes of this study, technology nodes were grouped into four ranges: 10,000 nm – 

1,000 nm; 1,000 nm – 250 nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm (see Figure I-2). 

Figure I-2: IC Technology 

Node Groups 

Technology Node 

(nanometers) 

Number of 

Companies 

10,000- 6,000 19 

6,000-3,000 24 

3,000-1,500 28 

1,500-1,000 28 

1,000-800 18 

800-500 24 

500-350 24 

350-250 21 

250-180 16 

180-130 17 

130-90 15 

90-65 10 

65-45 6 

45-32 4 

32 or smaller 2 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Office of Technology Evaluation, 

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication 

Capability Survey, November 2008.

U.S.-based IC fabrication capability in 2006 was primarily concentrated across two technology 

node ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm and 1,000 nm – 250 nm (see Figure I-3). Thirty-six 

fabricators were identified as operating fabrication facilities in the United States that can 
20

manufacture IC product in the 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm range. Most of this production capability 

is owned by small- and medium-size companies. Six of the 10 large-size companies produce IC 

product using this older IC manufacturing technology node. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure I-3: U.S.-Based Integrated Circuit Fabrication Capability 

by Technology Node Range

36

22

37

6*

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10,000 - 1,000 nm 1,000 - 250 nm 250 - 65 nm Less than 65 nm

Technology Node

Number of Companies

* 3 of these organizations are not capable of high volume production

Similarly, survey data shows 37 companies have the capability to manufacture ICs at 1,000-250 

nm technology node range. Again, the majority of this manufacturing capability is held by 15 of 

the 21 small-size companies and 16 of the 18 medium-size IC fabricators. Six large-size 

companies also operate such production facilities. 

Far fewer companies operating in the United States, 22 of the 49 fabricators, are able to 

manufacture IC products in the 250 nm – 65 nm range. Of those 22, seven companies can 

fabricate product at 65 nm. 

At the leading edge, the fabrication of commercial ICs at 65 nm began in 2005, and some 

fabricators are now making product at 45 nm and 32 nm.15 Six IC companies in the United 

 

15Intel Demonstrates Industry's First 32 nm Chip and Next-Generation Nehalem Microprocessor Architecture, Intel 

Corp., September 18, 2007. www.intel.com/archive/releases/20-70918corp_a.htm; IBM Alliance Partners 'Open for 
21

States, 12 percent of fabrication companies, can manufacture conventional IC products with 

circuit line widths below 65 nm. Of these six, three have limited production capability; their 

facilities are not designed for sustained, high-volume manufacturing. 

Based on company size, small- and medium-size companies have the vast majority of their 

capability in two technology node ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm and 1,000 nm – 250 nm (see 

Figure I-4). As stated previously, these are the most common technology node ranges for the 

fabrication of conventional IC products. Large-size companies, however, fabricate more often 

on the 250 nm – 65 nm range. Eighty percent of large-size companies manufacture IC products 

in this range, as opposed to only 32 percent and 40 percent of small- and medium-size 

companies, respectively. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure I-4: Percent of Companies Capable of Fabrication 

Per Technology Node Range

Less than 65 nm 5% 5% 40%

250 nm – 65 nm 32% 40% 80%

1,000 nm – 250 nm 79% 80% 60%

10,000 nm – 1,000 nm 84% 70% 60%

Large

(10 Companies)

Medium

(20 Companies)

Small

(19 Companies)

 Business' for 32 nm High-k/Metal Gate Designs, Semiconductor International, April 14, 2008. 

www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6551303.html
22

These numbers indicate that large-size companies are at the forefront of leading-edge IC 

fabrication in the United States. Four of the companies able to manufacture IC products at less 

than 65 nm are large-size, whereas only one small- and medium-size company possess this 

capability. 

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS

Most IC products manufactured are based on one of three standard silicon materials – bulk 

silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium. Other types of non-standard silicon and 

non-silicon materials are also used in manufacturing ICs and other semiconductor devices. 

Materials such as gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, and indium phosphate are increasingly 

employed in ICs used in products such as cell phones and network switches to enable higher 

operating speed than what may be achieved with conventional silicon-based devices. These 

materials also more readily support low-voltage electronic device architectures. 

OTE surveyed manufacturers on their capabilities to produce IC products using 10 standard and 

non-standard materials. Most fabrication capacity in the United States in 2006 was concentrated 

in standard silicon technologies (see Figure I-5). Specifically, 35 of 49 companies can produce 

IC product in bulk silicon. Of these, 10 companies are large-size, 15 are medium-size, and 

another 10 are small-size. Nineteen companies reported being able to manufacture ICs using 

silicon-on-insulator technology: six large-size, seven medium-size, and six small-size. Eleven IC 

fabricators can make product using silicon germanium alloy. Five of these fabricators are largesize, four are medium-size, and two are small-size. 
23

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure I-5: U.S.-Based Fabrication Capability

- By Company Size

2

2

2

5

6

7

2

6

6

10

1

2

3

2

4

4

8

7

15 10

1

5

6

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Silicon Carbide 

Amorphous Silicon 

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Indium Phosphate 

Antimonides 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Germanium 

Gallium Arsenide 

Silicon-on-Insulator

Bulk Silicon 

Material Type

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

Beyond standard materials, OTE asked fabricators to identify their capabilities to manufacture IC 

products using non-standard materials: silicon-on-sapphire (SOS), silicon carbide, gallium 

arsenide, gallium nitride, indium phosphate, amorphous silicon, and compounds containing 

antimonides. 

Gallium arsenide IC products first received significant use in military, aerospace, and 

supercomputer applications, but in recent years ICs built with this material have been widely 

deployed in cell phones, networking equipment, telecommunications switches, and other devices. 

Fifteen of 49 companies reported an ability to manufacture gallium arsenide IC products. One of 

these 15 companies is large-size, eight are medium-size, and six are small-size. 

IC products fashioned from gallium nitride offer performance advantages superior to those of 

gallium arsenide, including faster speed and far better heat tolerance for power amplifiers, 

microwave communications, and radar uses. Eleven companies reported capability to 

manufacture gallium nitride ICs in the United States. Seven of these are small-size companies 

and four are medium-size. 
24

Antimonides encompass a class of semiconductor alloys including indium antimonide, gallium 

antimonide, and aluminum antimonide. Three companies operating in the United States, two 

medium-size and one small-size, reported a capability to manufacture products with antimonide 

materials. 

Indium phosphate is a compound semiconductor material that can achieve faster speeds in ICs 

than what is attainable with common silicon transistors. Its advantages for some applications, 

however, have been eclipsed by advances in silicon germanium.16 Eight companies stated they 

are capable of fabricating IC products employing indium phosphate materials. Of these, five are 

small-size and three are medium-size manufacturers. 

IC products built using SOS offer performance advantages over standard silicon for high 

frequency devices and superior thermal conductivity. The use of this material for ICs, however, 

has been limited because of cost and process problems. Just four companies in the United States 

report an ability to manufacture SOS product – two are medium-size and two are small-size. 

Amorphous silicon has limited application in IC products, but is used in some devices such as 

specialized silicon memory devices. Three companies operating in the United States, one 

medium-size and the other two small-size, indicated they can fabricate with the material for IC 

and sensor products. 

The manufacturing base for IC products based on silicon carbide is similar to that of SOS. 

Silicon carbide is used in high-voltage ICs, light-emitting diodes, Schottky diodes, high 

temperature thyristors, and other products made using semiconductor device manufacturing 

processes. There are just three companies that can make devices in the United States using this 

material, which has excellent thermal conduction properties. Of these three fabricators, one is 

medium-size and two are small-size companies. 

 

 

16 Slimmer Chips Handle Fast Nets, Kimberly Patch, Technology Research News, June 27, 2001. 
25

Figure I-6 below summarizes the percent of fabrication capability per material type for the 49 

U.S.-based fabrication companies. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Silicon Carbide 6 %

Indium Phosphate 16 %

Gallium Nitride 22 %

Gallium Arsenide 31 %

Standard Silicon Materials

Non-Standard Materials

Silicon Sapphire 8 %

Antimonides 16 %

Silicon Germanium 22 %

Silicon on Insulator 39 %

Bulk Silicon 71 %

Figure I-6: Fabrication Capability – by Material Type

(As a Percent of 49 Total Fabrication Companies)

Several patterns emerge in summarizing fabrication capabilities by material types (see Figure I7). Large-size companies fabricate nearly exclusively on the three most common material types: 

bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium. The percent of large-size companies 

fabricating with these material types is much greater than for small- and medium-size companies. 

Only 53 percent of small-size companies and 75 percent of medium-size companies fabricate IC 

bulk silicon, whereas all large-size companies do so. 
26

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Silicon-on-Sapphire 11% 10% 0%

Standard Silicon Materials

Non-Standard Materials

11%

32%

26%

32%

11%

37%

11%

32%

53%

Small

(19 Companies)

5%

10%

15%

40%

5%

20%

20%

35%

75%

Medium

(20 Companies)

Amorphous Silicon 0%

Antimonides 0%

Indium Phosphate 0%

Gallium Arsenide 10%

Silicon Carbide 0%

Gallium Nitride 0%

Silicon Germanium 50%

Silicon-on-Insulator 60%

Bulk Silicon 100%

Large

(10 Companies)

Figure I-7: Percent of U.S.-Based Companies 

Capable of Fabricating by Material Type

Survey findings highlight that many small- and medium-size companies often fabricate across a 

more diverse range of material types compared to larger manufacturers. Frequently, the reason 

for this is the opportunity to exploit niche markets and to manufacture product lines where sales 

volumes are not sufficiently high to interest larger manufacturers. In fact, the large-size 

companies surveyed reported having capability to fabricate IC products using only the nonstandard material gallium arsenide. 

FABRICATION CAPABILITY BY WAFER SIZE

The foundation upon which IC devices are fabricated are circular wafers made of silicon, gallium 

arsenide, or other materials. Silicon is the most widely used wafer material. Wafers come in a 

range of sizes, including 2-, 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 12-inch diameter. The IC industry has steadily 

migrated to larger diameter wafers because they offer significant improvements in economies-ofscale in manufacturing. The larger the diameter of a wafer, the larger the area there is on which 

to pattern IC die and the greater the number of microchips that can be produced in a single 

processing cycle. 
27

The most common wafer size fabrication capability reported is 6-inch wafers, followed by 8-inch 

and then 4-inch (See Figure I-8). Thirty-five of 49 fabrication companies can utilize a 6-inch 

wafer, 71 percent of the total. Twelve-inch wafer fabrication capability is limited; only eight 

companies are able to manufacture on the largest wafer diameter now in use, 16 percent of total 

fabrication companies. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure I-8: U.S.-Based Fabrication Capability 

- by Wafer Size

15

21

35

25

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2 or 3 Inch 4 Inch 6 Inch 8 Inch 12 Inch

Wafer Size

Number of Companies

There appears to be correlation between company size as measured in net sales and wafer-size 

capability of the production facilities they operate. Large-size company production capacity is 

concentrated in 8- and 12-inch wafer production, although six companies operate 6-inch 

fabrication lines (see Figure I-9). Similarly, 65 percent of medium-size companies operate 6- 

and 8-inch production capacity; the remaining 35 percent being facilities using 2-, 3-, and 4-inch 

wafers. For 2-, 3-, and 4-inch wafers, more small-size companies have fabrication capability 

than medium- and large-size companies. 

The fact that large-size fabricators are virtually the only companies operating 12-inch production 

lines can be attributed to the high costs associated with building and operating this kind of 

manufacturing facility – and the need for a steady flow of high-volume orders to sustain them 
28

economically. It makes economic sense for small- and medium-size firms to use smaller wafer 

sizes, because they use smaller production runs of ICs to meet their customers’ needs. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure I-9: U.S.-Based Fabrication Capability 

- by Wafer and Company

12

14

1

6

8

1

6

9

5

11

15

9

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2 or 3 Inch 4 Inch 6 Inch 8 Inch 12 Inch

Wafer Size

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

DEVICE FABRICATION CAPABILITIES

The OTE survey requested information on the types of IC components companies are capable of 

manufacturing. OTE queried companies on four groups of IC product: application specific 

integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see Figure I-10). 
29

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure I-10: U.S.-Based Device Manufacturing

- by Company Size

2

3

3

3

4

5

5

5

4

9

6

6

9

13

1

4

2

5

6

8

7

8

8

8

9

8

14

14

3

1

4

2

4

4

5

9

6

5

4

2

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

DRAM

FPGA

One Time EPGA

Display Electronics

Digital Signal Processors

MPGA

SRAM

Structured ASICs

Nonvolatile Memory

MMIC Technologies

Standard Cell ASICs

Microprocessors/Coprocessors

Mixed Signal Technologies

Custom ASICs

Device Type

Small Medium Large Number of Companies

ASIC chips are designed to perform specific instructions and tasks and can provide performance 

advantages over general purpose microprocessors. Manufacturers were asked whether they 

could make any of four types of ASIC products: structured ASICs, standard cell ASICs, custom 

ASICs, and microprocessors/coprocessors.17

Seventeen manufacturers can make structured ASIC products, including four large-size 

companies, eight medium-size, and five small-size. For standard cell ASICs, 19 companies said 

they csn fabricate such products – four large-size, nine medium-size, and six small-size firms. 

Thirty-three companies reported an ability to produce custom ASICs – six large-size, 14 

medium-size, and 13 small-size. Nineteen companies stated that they can manufacture 

microprocessors and coprocessors – five of them large-size, eight medium-size, and six smallsize. 

Gate arrays are IC devices containing cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not 

connected. The appropriate interconnections are made using software to form a custom-designed 

working device. For the purpose of this report, the gate arrays group consists of field 

 

17 For definitions of each type of ASIC product, see Appendix C. 
30

programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), one-time electronically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs), 

and mask programmable gate arrays (MPGAs). Fifteen companies reported a capability to 

manufacture MPGAs – two large-size, eight medium-size, and five small-size. Nine 

manufacturers were able to produce one-time EPGAs - four large-size, two medium-size, and 

three small-size. Slightly fewer companies can manufacture FPGAS: one large-size, four 

medium-size, and three small-size fabricators. 

Manufacturers provided information on their ability to make three forms of memory ICs: 

dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), and 

nonvolatile memory. These are widely used in consumer, industrial, and defense electronic 

systems. Six companies reported an ability to fabricate DRAM in the United States – three 

large-size companies, one medium-size, and two small-size. Almost three times as many 

companies, 16 in total, can make SRAM in the United States: four large-size, seven mediumsize, and six small-size. 

Seventeen companies said they possess domestic manufacturing capability to produce 

nonvolatile memory products – six large-size, eight medium-size, and four small-size fabricators. 

Specifically, manufacturers were queried on 11 different categories of nonvolatile memory 

products: electronically erasable read-only memory (EEPROM), erasable read-only memory 

(EPROM), flash memory, ferro-electric random access memory (FeRAM), micro electromechanical systems memory (MEMS), magneto-resistive random access memory (MRAM), 

polymer memory, one-time programmable memory (XPM), phase change memory, zero 

capacitor random access memory (ZRAM), and other memory types (see Figure I-11). 
31

Figure I-11: U.S.-Based Capability to Manufacture Nonvolatile 

Memory Products

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

3

6

1

1

2

4

1 4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Polymer

XPM

ZRAM

FeRAM

Phase Change

MRAM

MEMS

Other

EPROM

Flash

EEPROM

Memory Device Type

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Eleven companies are able to manufacture EEPROMs and six can produce EPROMs. Seven 

companies reported an ability to make flash memory. Three companies stated they can fabricate 

MEMS memory product and two can make MRAM product. Only one company is able to 

produce phase change memory and only one can manufacture FeRAM memory. No company 

reported an ability to produce ZRAM, XPM, or polymer non-volatile memory in the United 

States. 

Fabricators were also asked about their ability to produce digital signal processors, 

micromonolithic integrated circuits (MMICs), mixed signal analog-digital ICs, and visual display 

IC devices (see Figure I-10). Digital signal processors can be fabricated by 14 manufacturers: 

four large-size companies, six medium-size companies, and four small-size companies. 

Seventeen companies posted capabilities to manufacture MMICs in the United States – eight 

medium-size companies and nine small-size. For mixed-signal analog-digital ICs, 32 companies 

stated they can produce the devices – nine large-size, 14 medium-size, and nine small-size 

companies. In the area of digital display ICs, fabrication capability was reported by two largesize, five medium-size, and three small-size companies. 
32

II. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY

To assess the state of radiation resistant IC manufacturing capability in the United States, OTE 

surveyed 49 companies on their ability to make radiation tolerant, radiation hardened, neutron 

hardened, and single-event-effects resistant IC products.18 Fabrication companies were asked 

whether they could manufacture radiation resistant ICs with circuit feature sizes ranging from 

10,000 nanometers (nm) to 32 nm.19

Survey participants were also asked to specify the types of semiconductor materials they could 

employ in manufacturing radiation resistant IC products. These materials were divided into 

standard silicon and non-standard groups. The former consists of bulk silicon, silicon-oninsulator, and silicon germanium materials. The non-standard materials included in the survey 

were silicon-on-sapphire, silicon carbide, gallium nitride, gallium arsenide, indium phosphate, 

antimonides, and amorphous silicon. Finally, fabrication companies were asked to identify these 

capabilities in relation to the size of semiconductor wafers (2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 12-inch) used in 

fabricating IC products.20

IC fabricators were categorized as small-, medium-, and large-size based on average net 

corporate sales from 2003-2006 (see Figure II-1). Of the 49 fabrication companies surveyed, 26 

were capable of manufacturing radiation resistant products in 2006, 53 percent of the total. Eight 

of these companies were small-size, 12 were medium-size, and six were large-size. 

 

18 A discussion of conventional fabrication capabilities is in Chapter I. 

19 Responses indicating an ability to manufacture at a given technology node, semiconductor chemistry, or device 

type does not mean the company is actually producing product at this time. 

20 IC design patterns are imaged onto silicon wafers coated with light-sensitive films (resist) and are etched. Once a 

wafer is fully processed, IC die or “chips” are cut from the wafer, which can hold hundreds of copies of an IC 

product. 
33

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Total 26 -

Size Number of Companies Net Sales 

Figure II-1: Total Number of Fabrication Companies 

Manufacturing Radiation Resistant IC Products

Medium 12 $100 million - $1 billion

Large 6 Greater than $1 billion

Small 8 Less than $100 million

Fabrication companies were asked to identify the types of radiation resistant products they can 

produce (see Figure II-2 and II-3). The greatest capability reported was for single-event effects 

resistant IC products, which are designed to continue functioning after a single energetic particle 

strikes the device. Sixteen out of 26 companies manufacture these products, a third of all 

fabrication companies. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-2: U.S.-Based Companies With Radiation 

Resistant Fabrication Capability in 2006

16

15

12

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Single Event

Effects Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies
34

Radiation tolerant products have a limited capacity to resist radiation damage that would 

otherwise disable the IC device.21 Fifteen companies manufacture radiation tolerant products, 

58 percent of all fabrication companies with radiation resistant capabilities. Radiation hardened 

IC products are designed to withstand even higher doses of radiation than radiation tolerant 

products.22 Twelve fabrication companies manufacture these types of IC products, 46 percent of 

radiation resistant-capable fabrication companies. 

Finally, only eight companies manufacture neutron hardened products. These chips are designed 

to withstand the effects of high speed neutrons, gamma rays, and electromagnetic pulses that 

accompany a nuclear weapons detonation. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-3: U.S.-Based Companies With Radiation 

Resistant Fabrication Capability - by Company Size

7 7

8

5

6

7

4

2

3

1 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Single Event

Effects

Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

 

21 Radiation tolerant refers to parts that can withstand a total dose failure of greater than 100 kilorad (krad), but less 

than 300 krad. A krad equals 1,000 rad. One rad = 0.01 joules/kilogram; 1 krad = 10J/kg.

22 Radiation hardened refers to parts that can withstand a total dose failure of greater than 300 krad. The 

International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulations have a baseline of 500 krad for radiation hardened products. 
35

PREVIOUS RADIATION RESISTANT MANUFACTURING EXPERIENCE

There are a number of fabrication companies that have previous experience with, but do not 

currently engage in the manufacture of radiation resistant ICs. In total, nine fabrication 

companies, 18 percent of the total, previously manufactured radiation resistant ICs but no longer 

did so as of 2006. Of these, four companies were large-size, three medium-size, and two smallsize. This previous experience is spread relatively evenly amongst the four radiation resistant 

product types (see Figure II-4 and II-5). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-4: U.S.-Based Companies With Previous 

Fabrication Radiation Resistant Experience

5

6 6

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Single Event

Effects Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies
36

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-5: U.S.-Based Companies With Previous 

Fabrication Radiation Resistant Experience 

- by Company Size

1

2

1 1

222

3

2 2

3 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

Single Event

Effects

Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

WILLINGNESS TO MANUFACTURE FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Fabrication companies were also asked to indicate whether or not they would be willing to 

manufacture radiation resistant ICs for the U.S. Government. Twenty-eight fabrication 

companies indicated a willingness to do so (see Figure II-6 and II-7). Of those responding 

favorably, 13 do not currently engage in the manufacture of radiation resistant IC products. 

There was a relatively even spread of interest by company size in designing these products for 

the U.S. Government. 
37

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-6: Interest in Fabricating Radiation Resistant 

Products for the U.S. Government

20

25

22

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Single Event

Effects Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-7: Interest in Fabricating Radiation Resistant 

Products for the U.S. Government - By Company Size

7

9 8

6

10

12

9

7

3 4 3

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Single Event

Effects Resistant

Radiation Tolerant Radiation

Hardened

Neutron Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large
38

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE

A technology node, sometimes referred to as a “process node” or “process technology,” indicates 

the smallest circuit feature size that can be drawn on a chip with a microlithography tool. Most 

commonly measured in nanometers (nm), technology nodes are generally accepted 

manufacturing benchmarks used by fabricators. Circuit feature dimensions dictate how much 

circuitry can be placed in a given area on a microchip. As technology nodes step down, circuit 

lines can be placed closer together, allowing for the manufacture of more complex devices and 

enabling enhanced performance. 

For the purpose of this study, technology nodes were grouped into four ranges: 10,000 nm – 

1,000 nm; 1,000 nm – 250 nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm. Fabrication at less than 65 

nm is a relatively recent practice in the industry. 

 

Nineteen of the 26 companies capable of fabricating radiation resistant products, 73 percent, 

could manufacture in the 1,000 nm – 250 nm range in 2006 (see figure II-8). There is slightly 

less manufacturing capability at the 250 nm – 65 nm and 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm ranges, with 16 

and 14 companies capable of utilizing these technology node ranges, respectively. 
39

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-8: U.S.-Based Integrated Circuit Radiation Resistant 

Fabrication Capability - by Technology Node Range

14

19

16

4*

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10,000 - 1,000 nm 1,000 - 250 nm 250 - 65 nm Less than 65 nm

Technology Node

Number of Companies

* 3 of these organizations are not capable of high volume production

Few companies manufacture radiation resistant products at the leading edge. Only four 

companies, 8 percent of total fabrication companies, are capable of manufacturing radiation 

resistant products at less than 65 nm. Three of these companies are not capable of high volume 

production of ICs at less than 65 nm because of limitations in their fabrication facilities. 

Based on company size, small- and medium-size companies are able to manufacture radiation 

resistant ICs almost exclusively in the 10,000nm – 1,000nm, 1,000nm – 250nm, and 250nm – 

65nm technology node ranges (see Figure II-9). These companies are commonly capable of 

manufacturing radiation resistant ICs in the 1,000 nm – 250 nm range, with slightly fewer 

companies able to fabricate in the other two ranges. Only one medium-size company can 

manufacture radiation resistant products at less than 65 nm. 

Large-size companies possess capabilities across all technology node ranges, with the capability 

to manufacture in the 250 nm – 65 nm range being the most common. Three of the four 

companies that can fabricate radiation resistant ICs at less than 65 nm are large-size. 
40

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-9: Percent of Companies Capable of Radiation 

Resistant Fabrication Per Technology Node Range

Less than 65 nm 0% 8% 50%

250 nm – 65 nm 63% 58% 67%

1,000 nm – 250 nm 88% 75% 50%

10,000 nm – 1,000 nm 63% 58% 33%

Large

(6 Companies)

Medium

(12 Companies)

Small

(8 Companies)

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS

Most IC products are based on one of three silicon materials – bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, 

silicon germanium. Other types of non-standard materials are also used in manufacturing ICs 

and other semiconductor devices. Materials such as gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, and 

indium phosphate are increasingly employed in ICs used in products such as cell phones, 

network switches to enable higher operating speeds than what may be achieved with 

conventional silicon-based devices. These materials also more readily support low-voltage 

electronic device architectures. 

As with conventional products, bulk silicon was the most commonly cited material for radiation 

resistant IC products in 2006 (see Figure II-10). Twenty-one companies, or 81 percent of 

radiation resistant-capable fabricators, can utilize bulk silicon. This includes all six large-size 

companies. In contrast, 11 fabricators reported being able to manufacture ICs using silicon-oninsulator (SOI) technology. Only five companies can manufacture radiation resistant ICs using 

silicon germanium. 

 
41

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-10: Scope of U.S.-Based Radiation 

Resistant Fabrication Capability

2

2

3

4

4

5

5

7

11

21

0 5 10 15 20 25

Amorphous Silicon 

Silicon Carbide 

Antimonides 

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Indium Phosphate 

Silicon Germanium 

Gallium Arsenide 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon-on-Insulator

Bulk Silicon 

Material Type

Number of Companies

In addition, there is capability in the United States to manufacture radiation resistant IC devices 

using non-standard IC materials (see figure II-11). These materials offer various performance 

advantages over standard silicon materials, with some materials offering inherent resistance to 

radiation. However, they often require specialized manufacturing processes and present higher 

production costs.
42

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Silicon Carbide 8%

Indium Phosphate 15%

Gallium Arsenide 19%

Gallium Nitride 27%

Standard Silicon Materials

Non-Standard Materials

Antimonides 12%

Silicon Sapphire 15%

Silicon Germanium 19%

Silicon on Insulator 42%

Bulk Silicon 81%

Figure II-11: Fabrication Capability – by Material Type

(As a Percent of 26 Fabrication Companies

Manufacturing Radiation Resistant Products)

Gallium nitride is the most commonly cited non-standard material type used in radiation resistant 

ICs. Seven of the 26 companies, 27 percent of all radiation resistant-capable fabricators, can 

manufacture gallium nitride radiation resistant IC products. There are fewer fabricators capable 

of utilizing the other non-standard material types (see Figures II-12 and II-13). Survey data 

showed no large-size companies are able to manufacture radiation resistant products using nonstandard material types. 
43

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-12: Scope of U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant 

Fabrication Capability - by Company Size

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

4

4

6

1

1

2

2

3

2

3

4

9

1

2

3

6

0 5 10 15 20 25

Silicon Carbide 

Amorphous Silicon 

Antimonides 

Indium Phosphate 

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Gallium Arsenide 

Silicon Germanium 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon-on-Insulator

Bulk Silicon 

Material Type

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Silicon-on-Sapphire 11% 10% 0%

Standard Silicon Materials

Non-Standard Materials

5%

11%

11%

11%

5%

21%

5%

21%

32%

Small

(19 Companies)

5%

5%

10%

15%

5%

15%

10%

20%

45%

Medium

(20 Companies)

Amorphous Silicon 0%

Antimonides 0%

Indium Phosphate 0%

Gallium Arsenide 0%

Silicon Carbide 0%

Gallium Nitride 0%

Silicon Germanium 20%

Silicon-on-Insulator 30%

Bulk Silicon 60%

Large

(10 Companies)

Figure II-13: Percent of U.S.-Based Companies Capable of 

Fabricating Radiation Resistant Products - by Material Type
44

FABRICATION CAPABILITY BY WAFER SIZE

Only three companies reported that they can manufacture radiation resistant products on 12-inch 

wafers (the largest wafer size), 11.5 percent of the 26 radiation resistant-capable fabrication 

companies surveyed. There is broader capability across the 26 fabrication companies that 

manufacture radiation resistant products at smaller wafer diameters. Twelve companies can 

operate production lines using 8-inch wafers and 18 firms report operating 6-inch wafer 

facilities. Fourteen companies can manufacture using 4-inch facilities, and eight companies said 

they use plants processing 2- or 3-inch wafers for producing radiation resistant IC products. 

 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-14: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant 

Fabrication Capability - by Wafer Size

8

14

18

12

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2 or 3 Inch 4 Inch 6 Inch 8 Inch 12 Inch

Wafer Size

Number of Companies
45

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-15: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant Fabrication 

Capability - by Wafer and Company Size

2

4

6

2

4 4

6 6 6 6

4

3

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2 or 3 Inch 4 Inch 6 Inch 8 Inch 12 Inch

Wafer Size

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

DEVICE FABRICATION CAPABILITIES 

The OTE survey requested fabrication companies to identify their capability to manufacture 

various radiation resistant devices. OTE queried companies on four groups of IC products: 

application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see 

figure II-16). 
46

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-16: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant

Fabrication Capability - by Device Type

2

2

4

7

8

8

9

10

11

11

12

13

18

21

0 5 10 15 20 25

Display Electronics

DRAM

One-Time EPGA

FPGA

Nonvolatile Memory

MPGA

Digital Signal Processors

SRAM

MMIC

Processors

Structured ASICs

Standard ASICs

Mixed Signal Technologies

Custom ASICs

Device Type

Number of Companies

Manufacturers were asked whether they could make any of four types of ASIC products: 

structured ASICs, standard ASICs, custom ASICs, and microprocessors/coprocessors. The 

greatest capability is in custom ASICS, which 21 companies reported being able to manufacture. 

The second greatest capability is in standard ASICs, with 13 companies reporting capability. 

Twelve companies can manufacture radiation resistant structured ASICs, while 11 are able to 

manufacture microprocessors/coprocessors. 

The gate arrays group consists of field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), one-time 

electronically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs), and mask programmable gate arrays 

(MPGAs). MPGAs are the most common, with 16 percent of all fabrication companies able to 

manufacture radiation resistant versions of these devices. There are four companies that can 

make radiation resistant one-time EPGAs, and seven that can make radiation resistant FPGAs. 

With regard to radiation resistant memory ICs, manufacturers provided information on their 

ability to make three forms of memory ICs: dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static 

random access memory (SRAM), and nonvolatile memory. Two companies reported an ability 
47

to fabricate DRAM in 2006. Ten companies are able to manufacture radiation resistant SRAM, 

while eight companies can manufacture nonvolatile memory. 

For the remaining IC products, the number of fabricators capable of producing radiation resistant 

products are as follows: 

• Digital signal processors – 9 

• Micromonolithic integrated circuits (MMICs) – 11 

• Mixed signal analog-digital ICs - 18 

• Anti-tamper technology - 4 

• Infrared focal plane arrays – 9 

There is little correlation between company size and their fabrication of particular radiation 

resistant devices. Small-, medium-, and large-size fabrication companies have diverse 

capabilities across all the device types. Generally, large-size companies are capable of 

manufacturing a wider range of devices, albeit on a narrower band of material types. Small- and 

medium-size companies are more likely to specialize in one or two device types on a wider 

spectrum of material types (see Figure II-17). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-17: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant 

Fabrication Capability - by Device Type

2

2

3

1

2

4

3

6

4

5

6

1

1

3

5

6

4

6

5

5

6

7

9

11

1

2

1

2

2

4

4

4

2

3

3

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Display Electronics

DRAM

One-Time EPGA

FPGA

Nonvolatile Memory

MPGA

Digital Signal Processors

SRAM

MMIC

Processors

Structured ASICs

Standard ASICs

Mixed Signal Technologies

Custom ASICs

Device Type

Small Medium Large Number of Companies
48

III. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION 

 COMPANIES

In addition to their capability to manufacture integrated circuit (IC) products, most fabrication 

companies operating in the United States also have capability to design IC components. To 

understand the extent of this design capability relative to fabless firms, OTE asked fabrication 

companies to describe their design capabilities. The 49 IC fabrication companies that 

participated in the survey were divided by size into three groups based on average net sales for 

2003-2006 (see Figure III-1). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Total 49 -

Size Number of Companies Net Sales 

Figure III-1: Total Number of Fabrication Companies 

Designing Conventional IC Products

Medium 20 $100 million - $1 billion

Large 10 Greater than $1 billion

Small 19 Less than $100 million

OTE asked fabrication companies to identify their capability to develop ICs with circuit feature 

sizes ranging from 10,000 nanometers (nm) to less than 32 nm.23 Companies were also 

requested to specify the kinds of IC products they can design, as well as the specific types of 

semiconductor materials their designs can employ. This included their ability to employ 

standard silicon formulations (bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium), as well 

as non-standard materials such as gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, indium phosphate, and other 

semiconducting materials. 

 

23 Responses indicating an ability to manufacture at a given technology node, semiconductor chemistry, or device 

type does not mean the company is actually producing product at this time corresponding to their responses. 
49

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE 

The technical design abilities of the 49 fabrication companies vary considerably, with some able 

to develop IC products for a broad range of physical requirements while other firms have 

distinctly narrower capabilities. As with manufacturing capability, fabrication companies can 

primarily design products for the 1,000 nm – 250 nm technology node ranges (see Figure III2).24 Fewer fabrication companies design products for less than 65 nm, only 10 out of 49. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure III-2: U.S.-Based Fabrication Company Design 

Capability - by Technology Node Range 

32

36

32

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10,000 - 1,000 nm 1,000 - 250 nm 250 - 65 nm Less than 65 nm

Technology Node

Number of Companies

When company size is factored into the ability of fabrication companies to design by technology 

node, some differences appear. At least 60 percent of small-, medium-, and large-size companies 

can design IC products over the 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm and 1,000 nm – 250 nm ranges (see 

Figure III-3). However, there is a substantial drop in the number of small- and medium-size 

companies that can design in the 250 – 65nm and less than 65nm ranges. Six large-size 

companies design products at less than 65 nm, while only two small- and two medium-size 

companies do the same. 

 

24 For the purposes of this study, technology nodes were grouped into four ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm; 1,000 nm 

– 250 nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm. 
50

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure III-3: Percent of Fabrication Companies Capable of 

Design Per Technology Node Range

Less than 65 nm 11% 10% 60%

250 nm – 65 nm 37% 80% 90%

1,000 nm – 250 nm 63% 90% 60%

10,000 nm – 1,000 nm 63% 70% 60%

Large

(10 Companies)

Medium

(20 Companies)

Small

(19 Companies)

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS

Fabrication companies were asked to state their ability to design IC products that rely not only on 

the standard silicon materials (bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium), but also 

on a range of non-standard materials: gallium arsenide, silicon-on-sapphire, gallium nitride, 

antimonides, indium phosphate, silicon carbide, and amorphous silicon. In all, fabrication 

companies described their capabilities to design IC devices utilizing 10 different material types. 

Similar to fabless companies, the majority of fabrication companies, 76 percent, design IC 

products with bulk silicon (Figure III-4). Fabrication companies are more likely to design with 

the other standard silicon materials than design-only companies. Fifty-three percent of 

fabrication companies design with silicon-on-insulator materials, whereas only 12 percent of 

fabless companies do the same. This also holds true for silicon germanium where 35 percent of 

fabrication companies reported capability while only 18 percent of design-only companies can 

design products using this material. 
51

With regard to non-standard materials, 13 fabrication companies are able to design IC devices 

based on gallium arsenide and 11 can design ICs employing gallium nitride. Design capability of 

the fabrication companies declines steadily for the other non-standard materials. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure III-4: Scope of U.S.-Based Conventional 

Design Capability - Fabrication Companies

3

3

3

5

7

11

13

17

26

37

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Antimonides 

Amorphous Silicon 

Silicon Carbide 

Indium Phosphate 

Gallium Nitride 

Gallium Arsenide 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon-on-Insulator

Bulk Silicon 

Material Type

Number of Companies

The design capabilities of IC fabricators vary by size. Large-size fabrication companies, for 

example, focus their design efforts on products employing the four most common IC materials: 

bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, silicon germanium, and gallium arsenide (see Figure III-5). 

The design capabilities of the small- and medium-size companies are more diverse, covering the 

three most-commonly utilized materials as well as the full range of non-standard materials. 
52

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure III-5: Scope of U.S.-Based Fabrication Company Design 

Capability - by Company Size

2

3

2

2

4

7

3

4

7

9

3

3

4

8

7

12

18

7

10

1

1

2

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Antimonides 

Amorphous Silicon 

Silicon Carbide 

Indium Phosphate 

Gallium Nitride 

Gallium Arsenide 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon-on-Insulator

Bulk Silicon 

Material Type

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY

OTE asked fabrication companies to identify the types of IC components they can design in the 

United States. Specific information was requested on four product groups: application specific 

integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see Figure III-6). 
53

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure III-6: U.S.-Based Device Design Capability

- Fabrication Companies

4

7

12

13

13

14

16

17

17

19

19

24

35

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

DRAM

Display Electronics

MPGA

FPGA

One Time EPGA

MMIC Technologies

Nonvolatile Memory

Digital Signal Processors

SRAM

Microprocessors/Coprocessors

Structured ASICs

Standard Cell ASICs

Custom ASICs

Mixed Signal Technologies

Device Type

Number of Companies

Survey participants reported capability to design four types of ASIC products: structured ASICs, 

standard ASICs, custom ASICs, and microprocessors/coprocessors.25 Significant differences in 

fabricators’ design abilities can be seen across these product categories. The largest reported 

capability is for custom ASICs where 35 fabrication companies (71 percent) possess the 

manufacturing capability. Twenty-four companies reported capability for standard ASICs, while 

19 firms can design structured ASICs and 19 can design microprocessors/coprocessors. 

Fabrication companies also reported capability to design a variety of gate array devices.26 For 

the purposes of this report, the gate arrays group consists of field programmable gate arrays 

(FPGAs), one-time electronically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs), and mask programmable 

gate arrays (MPGAs). Thirteen fabrication companies are capable of designing FPGAs and onetime EPGAs, 27 percent of the total, while twelve companies, or 24 percent, design can MPGAs. 

 

25 ASIC chips are designed to perform specific instructions and tasks, and can provide performance advantages over 

general purpose microprocessors. 

26 Gate arrays are IC devices containing cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not connected. The 

appropriate interconnections are made using software to form a custom-designed working device. 
54

With regard to memory, IC fabrication companies indicated their capability to design three forms 

of memory: dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), 

and nonvolatile memory.27 SRAM is the most commonly designed memory device, with 17 

fabrication companies doing so. Sixteen fabrication companies design nonvolatile memory, 

nearly a third of the total companies. Only four out of 49 fabrication companies indicated an 

ability to design DRAM products. 

IC fabrication companies were asked to further delineate their nonvolatile memory product 

capabilities in 11 different categories: electronically erasable read-only memory (EEPROM), 

erasable read-only memory (EPROM), flash memory, ferro-electric random access memory 

(FeRAM), micro electro-mechanical systems memory (MEMS), magneto-resistive random 

access memory (MRAM), polymer memory, one-time programmable memory (XPM), zero 

capacitor random access memory (ZRAM), phase change memory, and other memory types (see 

Figure III-7). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure III-7: U.S.-Based Capability to Design Nonvolatile Memory 

Products - Fabrication Companies

13

12

8

7

3

1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

EEPROM

Flash

Other

EPROM

MRAMMEMS

Phase

Change

Polymer

XPM

ZRAM

FeRAM

Memory Device Type

Number of Companies

 

27 These are widely used in consumer, industrial, and defense electronic systems. 
55

Of the 11 nonvolatile memory categories, only EEPROM, flash, other, EPROM, and MRAM 

memory can be developed by multiple fabrication companies. Only one company can design 

MEMS and phase change products, respectively. No fabrication company reported an ability to 

design polymer, XPM, ZRAM, or FeRAM nonvolatile memory. 

For the remaining device types, there is a variety of design capability present in the fabrication 

companies. This ranges from 35 firms that can design mixed signal technologies, to 19 firms 

capable of designing digital signal processors, to seven firms that can design display electronics. 
56

IV. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF 

 FABRICATION COMPANIES

OTE surveyed 49 integrated circuit (IC) fabrication companies with regard to their ability to 

design four types of radiation resistant products: single-event effects resistant, radiation tolerant, 

radiation hardened, and neutron hardened. Fabrication firms were asked to state their ability to 

design radiation resistant ICs with circuit feature sizes ranging from 10,000 nanometers (nm) to 

32 nm.28

Of the 49 fabrication companies surveyed, 31 indicated an ability to design some form of 

radiation resistant IC product (Figure IV-1). Eighty percent of all large-size companies surveyed 

can design radiation resistant ICs and 75 percent of all medium-size companies can do the same. 

Only 42 percent of all small-size firms reported this capability. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Total 31 -

Size Number of Companies Net Sales 

Figure IV-1: Total Number of Fabrication Companies 

Designing Radiation Resistant IC Products

Medium 15 $100 million - $1 billion

Large 8 Greater than $1 billion

Small 8 Less than $100 million

Eighteen fabricators, 58 percent of companies capable of designing radiation resistant ICs, 

indicated that in 2006 they were able to design single-event effect resistant products (see Figure 

IV-2 and IV-3). These ICs can continue operating after being disrupted by a single energetic 

particle that would cause a conventional device to fail. 

 

28 Responses indicating an ability to design at a given technology node, semiconductor chemistry, or device type 

does not mean the company is actually performing such work at this time. 
57

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-2: U.S.-Based Fabrication Companies With 

Radiation Resistant Design Capability in 2006

18

14

10

9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Single Event

Effects Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-3: U.S.-Based Fabrication Companies With 

Radiation Resistant Design Capability in 2006

- by Company Size

7

5 5

4

6

7

4

3

5

2 2

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Single Event

Effects

Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

Fourteen fabrication companies, 45 percent of all radiation resistant-capable fabrication firms, 

said they can design radiation tolerant products. Radiation tolerant products have a limited 
58

capacity to resist radiation that would otherwise disable an IC device.29 Ten fabrication 

companies, 32 percent of radiation resistant-capable fabrication firms, are able to design 

radiation hardened IC products, which can withstand higher doses of radiation relative to 

radiation tolerant products. 

Finally, nine fabrication companies, 29 percent of radiation resistant-capable fabrication firms, 

can design neutron-hardened IC products. Neutron-hardened ICs are able to withstand neutron 

radiation damage caused by gamma rays and electromagnetic pulses, such as those associated 

with a nuclear weapon detonation. 

PREVIOUS RADIATION RESISTANT DESIGN EXPERIENCE

Twenty-one companies indicated previous experience in designing with one or more of these 

products (Figure IV-4).30 Seventy-six percent of these companies (eight firms) indicated that 

they had previously but no longer design for each of the single-event effects resistant, radiation 

hardened, or neutron hardened product types. Six companies indicated that they previously 

designed radiation tolerant products, 29 percent of fabrication companies with previous 

experience. 

 

29 Radiation tolerant consists of parts that can withstand a total dose failure of greater than 100 krad, but less than 

300 krad. 

30 Previous experience does not indicate a company currently has capability. 
59

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-4: U.S.-Based Fabrication Companies With 

Previous Radiation Resistant Design Experience

8 8

6

8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Single Event

Effects Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-5: U.S.-Based Fabrication Companies 

With Previous Radiation Resistant Design 

Experience - by Company Size

222

1

4

3

2

4

2

3 3

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

Single Event

Effects

Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large
60

WILLINGNESS TO DESIGN FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Fabrication companies were also asked whether they would be interested in designing radiation 

resistant IC products if called upon by the U.S. Government (see Figure IV-6). Thirty-four 

companies responded favorably, including twelve companies that did not indicate having an 

existing capability to design radiation resistant IC products. There was a relatively even level of 

interest across companies, regardless of size, in designing radiation resistant IC products for the 

U.S. Government. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-6: Interest in Designing Radiation Resistant Products 

for the U.S. Government - Fabrication Companies

28

30

27

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Single Event

Effects Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies
61

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-7: Interest in Designing Radiation Resistant 

Products for the U.S. Government by Company Size - 

Fabrication Companies

10 10 10

8

15

13 12 11

55 5 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Radiation

Tolerant

Single Event

Effects

Resistant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE

Although 31 IC fabricators stated they can design radiation resistant products, not all have equal 

capabilities. Beyond differences in company ability to design specific types of radiation resistant 

products, there are major differences in the ability to create ICs to meet some physical and 

performance characteristics. This is illustrated in the number of companies able to design for 

certain technology nodes. 

Fabrication companies were asked to specify capabilities to design radiation resistant IC products 

for 15 technology nodes, ranging from 10,000nm to less than 65mn. For the purposes of this 

study, technology nodes were grouped into four ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm; 1,000 nm – 250 

nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm. Fifteen fabrication firms reported having design 

ability in the 10,000 – 1,000 nm range, 22 companies in the 1,000 - 250 nm range, 24 companies 

in the 250 – 65 nm range, and seven companies at technology nodes less than 65 nm (see Figure 

IV-8). 
62

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-8: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant Design Capability 

by Technology Node Range - Fabrication Companies

15

22

24

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10,000 - 1,000 nm 1,000 - 250 nm 250 - 65 nm Less than 65 nm

Technology Node

Number of Companies

Design capability for radiation resistant products at different technology nodes is spread evenly 

amongst the fabrication companies, although some trends based on company size are apparent 

(see Figure IV-9). Small- and medium-size companies mainly design in the 1,000 nm -250 nm 

and 250 nm – 65 nm ranges. Large-size companies are more focused on designing for the 250 

nm – 65 nm and less than 65 nm ranges. 
63

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-9: Percent of Fabrication Companies Capable of 

Radiation Resistant Design Per Technology Node Range

Less than 65 nm 5% 10% 40%

250 nm – 65 nm 32% 60% 60%

1,000 nm – 250 nm 32% 65% 30%

10,000 nm – 1,000 nm 21% 40% 30%

Large

(10 Companies)

Medium

(20 Companies)

Small

(19 Companies)

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS

Survey participants identified their ability to design radiation resistant IC products employing 

specific types of semiconductor materials. For the purposes of analysis, these materials were 

divided into two groups: standard silicon materials – bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and 

silicon germanium materials; and non-standard materials – silicon-on-sapphire, silicon carbide, 

gallium nitride, gallium arsenide, indium phosphate, antimonides, and amorphous silicon. 

As with conventional IC products, fabrication companies are most capable of designing radiation 

resistant products utilizing bulk silicon. Twenty-three of the 31 fabrication companies declaring 

capability to design radiation resistant products (74 percent) said they could design devices based 

on bulk silicon (see Figure IV-10). For the other standard silicon materials, thirteen companies 

said they could design radiation resistant ICs manufactured using silicon-on-insulator, and 10 

could design for devices using silicon germanium. 
64

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-10: Scope of U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant 

Design Capability - Fabrication Companies

2

3

3

4

5

5

7

10

13

23

0 5 10 15 20 25

Silicon Carbide 

Antimonides 

Amorphous Silicon 

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Gallium Arsenide 

Indium Phosphate 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon-on-Insulator

Bulk Silicon 

Material Type

Number of Companies

The ability of fabrication companies to design radiation resistant products using non-standard 

materials drops significantly when compared to standard materials. Gallium nitride is the most 

prevalent with seven companies, four small-size and three medium-size, capable of designing on 

this material. On the other hand, silicon carbide is the least prevalent, with only two fabrication 

companies, one small-size and one medium-size, indicating capability (see Figure IV-11). No 

large-size fabrication companies design for non-standard materials. 
65

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-11: Scope of U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant 

Design Capability by Company Size 

- Fabrication Companies

2

6

2

2

4

2

3

5

6

11

4

4

3

1

2

1

1

2 1

1

3

3

6

0 5 10 15 20 25

Silicon Carbide 

Antimonides 

Amorphous Silicon 

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Gallium Arsenide 

Indium Phosphate 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon-on-Insulator

Bulk Silicon 

Material Type

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

DEVICE TYPE DESIGN CAPABILITY

Fabrication companies also identified the types of radiation resistant IC devices they are capable 

of designing. OTE queried companies on four groups of IC products: application specific 

integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see figure IV-12). 
66

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-12: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant Device

Design Capability - Fabrication Companies

1

2

7

7

8

9

9

9

10

14

14

16

21

23

0 5 10 15 20 25

DRAM

Digital Signal Processors

Display Electronics

MMIC Technologies

Structured ASICs

FPGA

Mixed Signal Technologies

Standard Cell ASICs

MPGA

Nonvolatile Memory

SRAM

One Time EPGA

Microprocessors/Coprocessors

Custom ASICs

Device Type

Number of Companies

For the purpose of this survey, the ASICs group consists of four device types: custom ASICs, 

standard cell ASICs, structured ASICs, and microprocessors/coprocessors. Amongst this group, 

custom ASICs is the most commonly designed device, with 23 fabrication companies indicating 

a capability to design these devices. Twenty-one fabrication companies can design radiation 

resistant microprocessors/ coprocessors, the second most common device design capability. 

Companies have less capability to design radiation resistant standard cell ASICs and structured 

ASICs, with nine and eight companies designing these devices, respectively. 

Gate arrays consist of one-time electronically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs), mask 

programmable gate arrays (MPGAs), and field programmable gate arrays (FGPAs). One-time 

EPGAs are the most prevalent gate array, with 16 companies that can design these devices. Ten 

companies can design MPGAs, while nine companies are capable of designing FPGAs. 

Fabrication companies indicated their ability to develop three forms of radiation resistant 

memory: dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), and 

nonvolatile memory. SRAM and nonvolatile memory are the memory devices most commonly 
67

designed, with 14 fabrication companies doing so. Significantly fewer can design radiation 

resistant DRAM products, only one of 31 fabrication companies. 

Beyond these devices, mixed signal technologies are the most commonly designed radiation 

resistant product. Nine companies can design radiation resistant versions of these devices, 29 

percent of radiation resistant-capable fabrication companies. Seven companies can design 

radiation resistant MMIC technologies or display electronics, 22.5 percent of fabrication 

companies with radiation resistant capabilities. Only two fabrication companies can design 

digital signal processors, six percent of radiation resistant-capable fabrication companies. 
68

V. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY

OTE surveyed fabless integrated circuit (IC) companies in the United States, companies that 

design and develop IC product but do not own and operate fabrication facilities. The 106 fabless 

companies that participated in the survey were divided into three groups based on average net 

sales for 2003-2006 (see Figure V-1). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Total 106 -

Size Number of Companies Net Sales 

Figure V-1: Total Number of Fabless Companies 

Designing Conventional IC Products

Medium 27 $25 million - $350 million

Large 14 Greater than $350 million

Small 65 Less than $25 million

OTE asked fabless companies to indicate their capability to develop ICs with circuit feature sizes 

ranging from 10,000 nanometers (nm) to less than 32 nm.31 Companies were also requested to 

specify the kinds of IC products they can design, as well as the specific types of semiconductor 

materials their designs can employ. This included their ability to employ standard silicon 

formulations (bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium), as well as non-standard 

materials such as gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, indium phosphate, and other semiconducting 

materials. 

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE

The technical abilities of the 106 fabless companies vary considerably. Some are able to develop 

IC products for a broad range of physical requirements, while other firms have distinctly 

narrower capabilities. The capability of the majority of surveyed fabless firms is primarily 

 

31 Responses indicating an ability to manufacture at a given technology node, semiconductor chemistry, or device 

type does not mean the company is actually producing product at this time corresponding to their responses. 
69

concentrated across two technology node ranges, 250 – 65 nm and 1,000 – 250 nm, with 76 

companies able to design for the former and 51 for the latter (see Table V-2). 32

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure V-2: U.S.-Based Fabless Capability for Conventional IC 

Products - by Technology Node

21

51

76

23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10,000 - 1,000 nm 1,000 - 250 nm 250 - 65 nm Less than 65 nm

Technology Node

Number of Companies

Fabless company IC design capability is concentrated in the 250 – 65 nm and 1,000 – 250 nm 

ranges, 76 and 51, respectively; the majority of these companies are small-size (see Figures V-3 

and V-4). Considerably fewer fabless companies, 21, are able to design IC product in the 10,000 

nm – 1,000 nm technology range. Of this total, 11 are small-size, six are medium-size, and four 

are large-size fabless firms. At leading edge technology nodes of less than 65 nm, 23 companies 

report being capable of performing design work for conventional IC product. Much of this 

design capability rests with 10 large-size fabless firms. Eight small-size and five medium-size 

companies also have capability to work in this design range. 

 

32 A technology node indicates the smallest circuit feature size that can be drawn on a chip with a microlithography 

tool. For the purposes of this study, technology nodes were grouped into four ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm; 1,000 

nm – 250 nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm. 
70

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure V-3: U.S.-Based Fabless Capability for 

Conventional IC Products - by Company Size

11

6 4

26

17

8

45

20

11

8

5

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Small Medium Large

Size

Number of Companies

10,000 nm - 1,000 nm

1,000 nm - 250 nm

250 nm - 65 nm

Less than 65 nm

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure V-4: Percent of Fabless Companies Capable of 

Design Per Technology Node Range

Less than 65 nm 12% 19% 71%

250 nm – 65 nm 69% 74% 79%

1,000 nm – 250 nm 40% 63% 57%

10,000 nm – 1,000 nm 17% 22% 29%

Large

(14 Companies)

Medium

(27 Companies)

Small

(65 Companies)
71

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS

Fabless companies were asked to state their ability to develop IC products that rely not only on 

standard silicon materials (bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium), but also on 

a range of non-standard materials.33 In all, design companies addressed their capabilities to 

develop IC devices utilizing one or more of 10 material types. 

Survey data shows most of the IC design capacity in the United States is concentrated in standard 

silicon technologies (See table V-5). In particular, bulk silicon is the material type most fabless 

companies are prepared to design products around. Specifically, 88 of 106 companies currently 

design for IC products in bulk silicon. Of these companies, 11 are large-size, 21 medium-size, 

and 56 small-size. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure V-5: Scope of U.S.-Based Fabless Capability 

- by Company Size

4

7

11

56

1

4

5

21 11

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Amorphous Silicon 

Silicon Carbide 

Indium Phosphate 

Antimonides 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Gallium Arsenide 

Silicon-on-Insulator

Silicon Germanium 

Bulk Silicon 

Material Type

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

While 83 percent of fabless companies can develop IC product to be manufactured with bulk 

silicon, only 18 percent of the 106 companies (19 firms) can design ICs using silicon 

 

33 Silicon-on-sapphire, silicon carbide, gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, indium phosphate, amorphous silicon, and 

compounds containing antimonides. 
72

germanium. Three of the companies are large-size companies, five are medium-size, and 11 are 

small-size. Fabless company capability for designing product using silicon-on-insulator is 

limited to 13 firms: two large-size, four medium-size, and seven small-size companies. 

In the case of non-standard silicon products, fabless companies have minimal to no ability to 

develop product using these material types. The count of fabless companies capable of using 

non-standard materials breaks out as follows: gallium arsenide, 7; silicon-on-sapphire, 4; gallium 

nitride, 2; antimonides, 1; indium phosphate, 1; silicon carbide, 1; organic technologies, 0; and 

amorphous silicon, 0. 

DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY

OTE also asked fabless companies to identify the types of IC components they are able to 

develop in the United States. Specific information was requested on four product groups: 

application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see 

Figure V-6). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure V-6: U.S.-Based Device Design 

by Company Size - Fabless Companies

2

3

3

4

2

6

6

8

14

12

16

19

31

36

1

3

3

4

3

5

5

3

10

6

9

18

20

2

1

1

3

3

4

3

4

6

6

8

8

7

3 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Display Electronics

MMIC Technologies

DRAM

Nonvolatile Memory

One Time EPGA

MPGA

Structured ASICs

SRAM

FPGA

Digital Signal Processors

Microprocessors/Coprocessors

Standard Cell ASICs

Custom ASICs

Mixed Signal Technologies

Device Type

Number of Companies Small Medium Large
73

Survey participants were also asked whether they could design four types of ASIC products: 

structured ASICs, standard ASICs, custom ASICs, and microprocessors/coprocessors.34 Fiftyseven companies reported capability to design custom ASICs, of which eight are large-size 

companies, 18 are medium-size and 31 are small-size. For standard cell ASICs, 36 companies 

said they were able to design such products: eight large-size, nine medium-size, and 19 smallsize firms. Fifteen companies can design structured ASIC products, including four large-size 

companies, five medium-size, and six small-size. Twenty-eight companies stated that they can 

design microprocessors and coprocessors – six of them large-size companies, six medium-size, 

and 16 small-size 

Fabless companies reported capability to design a variety of gate array devices.35 For the 

purposes of this report, the gate arrays group consists of field programmable gate arrays 

(FPGAs), one-time electronically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs), and mask programmable 

gate arrays (MPGAs). In total, 21 companies can design FPGA product, of which 14 are smallsize, three are medium-size, and four are large-size companies. Twelve companies reported 

capability to manufacture MPGAs, of which three are large-size designers, three are mediumsize, and six are small-size. Nine were able to design one-time EPGAs: three large-size 

companies, four medium-size, and two small-size. 

With regard to memory ICs, fabless firms provided responses on their ability to develop three 

forms of memory: dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory 

(SRAM), and nonvolatile memory. These are widely used in consumer, industrial, and defense 

electronic systems. Seven fabless firms reported being able to design for DRAM, of which one 

is a large-size company, three are medium-size, and three are small-size. In contrast, twice as 

many companies (16) can design for SRAM, of which three are large-size firms, five are 

medium-size, and three are small-size. 

 

34 ASIC chips are designed to perform specific instructions and tasks, and can provide performance advantages over 

general purpose microprocessors. 

35 Gate arrays are IC devices containing cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not connected. The 

appropriate interconnections are made using software to form a custom-designed working device. 
74

Eight companies said they possess design capability for nonvolatile memory products: one largesize design firm, three medium-size firms, and four small-size firms. Designers were asked to 

further report their nonvolatile memory product capabilities in 11 categories: electronically 

erasable read-only memory (EEPROM), erasable read-only memory (EPROM), flash memory, 

ferro-electric random access memory (FeRAM), micro electro-mechanical systems memory 

(MEMS), magneto-resistive random access memory (MRAM), polymer memory, one-time 

programmable memory (XPM), zero capacitor random access memory (ZRAM), phase change 

memory, and other memory types (see Figure V-7). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure V-7: U.S.-Based Capability to Design Nonvolatile 

Memory Products - Fabless Companies

7

5

3

1 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

EEPROM

Flash

Other

EPROM

FeRAM

MRAMMEMS

Phase

Change

Polymer

XPM

ZRAM

Memory Device Type

Number of Companies

Of the 11 nonvolatile memory categories, only EEPROM, flash, and other memory can be 

developed by multiple fabless companies. Only one company can design EPROM and FeRAM 

products, respectively. No fabless company reported an ability to develop MRAM, MEMS, 

phase change, polymer, one-time programmable (XPM), or ZRAM memory products. 

Beyond memory, fabless firms were asked about their ability to design digital signal processors, 

micromonolithic integrated circuits (MMICs), mixed signal analog-digital ICs, and visual display 

IC devices. Digital signal processors can be designed by 28 fabless firms: six are large-size, 10 
75

are medium-size, and 12 are small-size. Six companies reported capabilities to design MMICs, 

including two large-size companies, one medium-size, and three small-size. For mixed-signal 

analog-digital ICs, 63 companies stated they can design the devices, of which seven are largesize companies, 20 are medium-size, and 36 are small-size. In the area of digital display ICs, 

design capability was reported by one large-size company, three medium-size, and two smallsize – six fabless companies in total. 
76

VI. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY

OTE surveyed 106 fabless companies on their ability to develop radiation resistant products: 

single-event effects resistant, radiation tolerant, radiation hardened, and neutron hardened. 

Fabless firms were asked to state their ability to design radiation resistant ICs with circuit feature 

sizes ranging from 10,000 nanometers (nm) to 32 nm.36

Survey participants were also asked to specify their ability to design radiation resistant IC 

products employing specific types of semiconductor materials. For the purposes of analysis, 

these materials were divided into standard silicon materials – bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, 

and silicon germanium materials, and non-standard materials –silicon-on-sapphire, silicon 

carbide, gallium nitride, gallium arsenide, indium phosphate, and amorphous silicon. 

Fabless IC design companies were categorized as small, medium, and large in size based on 

average net corporate sales from 2003-2006 (see Figure VI-1). In 2006, 19 fabless firms, 18 

percent of the 106 survey respondents, reported capability to design one or more types of 

radiation resistant products. Based on net sales, eight of these companies were categorized as 

small, 12 were categorized as medium, and six were categorized as large in size. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Total 19 -

Size Number of Companies Net Sales 

Figure VI-1: Total Number of Fabless Companies 

Designing Radiation Resistant IC Products

Medium 6 $25 million - $350 million

Large 5 Greater than $350 million

Small 8 Less than $25 million

 

36 Responses indicating an ability to design at a given technology node, semiconductor chemistry, or device type 

does not mean the company is actually performing such work at this time. 
77

Fabless firms specified the types of radiation resistant products they can produce. Fabless design 

capability, in terms of number of companies, is greatest for single-event effects resistant ICs, 

which can continue to function after a single energetic particle strikes the device.37 Fourteen of 

19 companies reported capability to design these devices, or 74 percent of all fabless firms with 

radiation resistant capability (see Figures VI-2 and VI-3). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-2: U.S.-Based Fabless Companies With 

Radiation Resistant Design Capability in 2006

14

9

8

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Single Event

Effects Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

 

37 Single-event effects are caused by a single energetic particle striking an integrated circuit device. Performance of 

the device is not compromised to a point where it is inoperable or not reliable for executing a mission as a result of 

latch-up, burnout, or gate rupture. 
78

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-3: U.S.-Based Fabless Companies With Radiation 

Resistant Design Capability in 2006 - by Company Size

4

1

2 2

6 6

5

3

4

2

1 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Single Event

Effects

Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

Radiation tolerant products have a limited capacity to resist radiation damage that would 

otherwise critically damage an IC device. 38 Nine fabless companies responding to the survey, 

47 percent of radiation resistant-capable fabless firms, said they can design radiation tolerant 

products. 

Radiation hardened IC products can withstand higher doses of radiation relative to radiation 

tolerant products. Eight fabless companies, or 42 percent of those with radiation resistant 

capabilities, can produce such IC product designs. 

Neutron-hardened ICs are capable of withstanding neutron radiation damage attributable to 

gamma rays and electromagnetic pulses such as those associated with a nuclear weapon 

detonation. Six fabless companies stated they can design neutron-hardened ICs. 

 

38 Radiation tolerant consists of parts that can withstand a total dose failure of greater than 100 kilorad (krad), but 

less than 300 krad. A krad equals 1,000 rad. One rad = 0.01 joules/kilogram; 1 krad = 10J/kg. 
79

PREVIOUS RADIATION RESISTANT DESIGN EXPERIENCE

Five fabless companies reported having previous experience in the design of radiation resistant 

ICs; as of 2006, they were not designing radiation resistant IC devices. This previous 

experience is largely concentrated in small-size companies (see Figure VI-4). Large-size 

companies, however, reported previous capability across all four types of radiation resistant 

devices covered in the survey. Medium-size companies did not indicate any previous capability. 

Four fabless firms said they previously have performed design work on single-event effect 

devices, and five companies reported the same for radiation tolerant ICs. Five companies 

reported prior design work on radiation hardened devices. Only three companies acknowledged 

previous design work for neutron hardened ICs. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-4: U.S.-Based Fabless Companies With 

Previous Radiation Resistant Design Experience

4

5 5

3

0

3

6

9

12

15

Single Event

Effects Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies
80

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-5: U.S.-Based Fabless Companies With 

Previous Radiation Resistant Design Experience 

- by Company Size

2

4 4

1

2

1

2

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Single Event

Effects

Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

WILLINGNESS TO DESIGN FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Although only 19 of the 106 companies reported current business in designing radiation resistant 

IC products, survey data indicates that if needed, more design companies could engage in such 

work. Fabless companies were specifically asked if they would be interested in designing 

radiation resistant IC products if called upon by the U.S. Government. Twenty-three companies 

responded favorably, including nine companies that did not indicate having an existing capability 

to design radiation resistant IC products. 

IC fabless company interest in carrying out work for U.S. Government customers in the four 

product categories is greatest in small- and medium-size companies, where 30 small-size and 27 

medium-size companies expressed interest (see Figure VI-6). Large-size fabless firms were least 

interested in performing government work, with nine companies responding positively. 

Design work on single-event effects resistant and radiation tolerant IC devices were areas of high 

interest for 21 and 17 fabless companies, respectively, that expressed a willingness to do work 
81

for the U.S. Government. Fourteen companies stated interest in design work for the government 

for both radiation hardened IC and neutron hardened product. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-6: Interest in Designing Radiation Resistant 

Products for the U.S. Government - Fabless Companies

21

17

14 14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Single Event

Effects Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Radiation

Hardened

Neutron

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-7: Interest in Designing Radiation Resistant 

Products for the U.S. Government by Company Size

- Fabless Companies

9 8 7 6

8 7 6 6

4

2 2 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

Single Event

Effects

Resistant

Radiation

Tolerant

Neutron

Hardened

Radiation

Hardened

Capability

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large
82

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE

IC fabless companies were asked to disclose abilities to design radiation resistant products not 

only by type of radiation resistant product, but also in terms of physical and material 

characteristics. Capability to design radiation resistant IC products across technology nodes, 

ranging from 10,000 nm to less than 65 nm, was reported by fabless design firms. 

The technology nodes were broken into four ranges. Nine firms reported having design ability in 

the 10,000 – 1,000 nm range, 13 in the 1,000 - 250 nm range, 17 in the 250 – 65 nm range, and 

nine at technology nodes below 65 nm (see Figure VI-8). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-8: U.S.-Based Fabless Companies with Radiation 

Resistant Design Capability - by Technology Node Range

9

13

17

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

10,000 - 1,000 nm 1,000 - 250 nm 250 - 65 nm Less than 65 nm

Technology Node

Number of Companies

Capability to design ICs at larger dimensions, in the 10,000 nm - 1,000 nm range is dispersed 

across the industry with two small-, four medium-, and three large-size companies (see Figure 

VI-9). By number of firms, most fabless firm capability for designing radiation resistant product 

is concentrated in the 1,000 nm-250 nm and 250-65 nm ranges. Three medium-size companies 

and five large-size companies reported capabilities to design radiation resistant IC products at the 

65 nm technology node or smaller; only one small-size company reported such capability. 
83

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-9: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant Design 

Capability by Technology Node - Fabless Companies

2

4

3

4

5

4

7

5 5

3

5

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Small Medium Large

Size

Number of Companies

10,000 nm - 1,000 nm

1,000 nm - 250 nm

250 nm - 65 nm

Less than 65 nm

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS

IC design companies also stated their capability to design radiation resistant IC devices using a 

variety of different materials. As with conventional products, bulk silicon is a material with 

which IC design companies appear most capable (see Figure VI-10). Sixteen of the 19 fabless 

companies declared capability to design radiation resistant products in bulk silicon. The number 

of small-, medium-, and large-size companies with this ability are nearly equal. Seven 

companies said they could design radiation resistant ICs that would be manufactured using 

silicon-on-insulator, and three could design for devices using silicon germanium. 
84

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-10: Scope of U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant 

Design Capability by Company Size - Fabless Companies

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

2

4

6

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

5

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Carbide 

Indium Phosphate 

Antimonides 

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Silicon Germanium 

Gallium Arsenide 

Amorphous Silicon 

Silicon-on-Insulator

Bulk Silicon 

Material Type

Number of Companies

Small Medium Large

As noted earlier, materials such as gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, and indium phosphate are 

increasingly used in ICs for cell phones, network switches and other products. These materials 

deliver higher speeds and more readily support lower voltage electronic device architectures 

compared to conventional silicon-based devices. 

Very few fabless companies, however, declared an ability to design radiation resistant IC 

products built with non-standard materials. Two companies reported capability to design for 

silicon-on-sapphire, while three companies stated they were able to design devices using gallium 

arsenide. For radiation resistant IC devices using gallium nitride, indium phosphate, 

antimonides, silicon carbide, and amorphous silicon materials, only one company reported 

capability to design product in each category. All capability to design radiation resistant IC 

products using non-standard materials resides in medium-size companies. 

DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY

Beyond designing for specific types of materials, fabless companies were also asked to identify 

the types of IC devices they can design. OTE queried companies on four groups of IC products: 
85

application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see 

figure VI-9). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-11: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant Design 

Capability by Device Type - Fabless Companies

2

3

1

2

3

5

3

4

5

7

7

2

1

2

2

3

2

3

2

3

7

4

6

2

2

2

4

1 2

1

2

2

1

3

1

2

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Mixed Signal Technologies

Digital Signal Processors

DRAM

MMIC Technologies

Structured ASICs

Standard Cell ASICs

Display Electronics

Nonvolatile Memory

SRAM

FPGA

MPGA

Microprocessors/Coprocessors

One Time EPGA

Custom ASICs

Device Type

Small Medium Large Number of Companies

For three types of ASICs – custom, standard cell, and structured – 15 fabless companies can 

design one or more product types as radiation resistant. Specifically, 15 companies can design 

custom ASICs, 13 companies can design standard cell ASICs, and eight companies can design 

structured cell ASICs. Most of this design capability resides in small- and medium-size fabless 

firms. Only two large-size fabless companies have design capability for custom, standard cell, 

and structured ASICs. With respect to microprocessors/coprocessors, nine firms said they are 

able to design radiation resistant devices: four small-, three medium-, and two large-size 

companies. 

Nine fabless firms reported the ability to design one or more varieties of radiation resistant gate 

arrays: field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), nine companies; mask programmable gate 

arrays (MPGAs), six companies; and one-time electrically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs), 

five companies. For these gate array devices, medium- and large-size companies account for a 

majority of this design capability. 
86

The design capability of fabless companies narrows for the three types of memory products: 

dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), and 

nonvolatile memory. Seven companies, five small-size and two medium-size, said they were 

able to design static random access memory (SRAM) product. Three small-size companies and 

one medium-size can design nonvolatile radiation resistant memory devices. Only one smallsize company and two medium-size companies reported having the ability to design dynamic 

random access (DRAM) memory. 

 

The ability of fabless companies to design for a range of other IC devices is varied. Thirteen 

firms said they can design for mixed signal technology products: five small-size, seven mediumsize, and one large-size. Seven companies – three small-, three medium-, and one large-size – 

also reported capability to design digital signal processors. Two small- and two medium-size 

companies said they can design electronic display IC products. Only two firms, one small-size 

and one medium-size, indicated they can design radiation resistant micromonolithic integrated 

circuits (MMICs). 
87

VII. UTILIZATION RATES

To understand manufacturing activity levels and gain insight into the industry’s ability to handle 

surges in production orders, fabrication companies were asked to provide their average 

manufacturing capacity utilization at each of their U.S.-based fabrication facilities for 2003-

2006.39 Each facility was also required to provide their maximum number of wafer starts and 

average actual wafer starts per week for 2007 to see how well companies could handle a surge in 

production.40 Finally, companies reported plans for continuing operation of each of their 

fabrication facilities through 2011. 

WAFER START CAPACITY AND COMPANY UTILIZATION RATES

Large-size companies represent the vast majority of production capability with an average 

maximum wafer start capacity of 29,126 starts per week in 2007 and actual average wafer starts 

per week of 23,725, a utilization rate of 81 percent (see Figure VII-1). Medium-size companies 

have a slightly higher utilization rate of 82 percent, but have a much lower wafer start capacity. 

In fact, these companies have an average maximum capacity of 26,000 fewer wafer starts per 

week than large-size companies. Small-size companies have an even lower maximum capacity 

than medium-size companies, an average of 629 wafer starts per week. Of this small number, 

the average actual wafer starts for this industry segment was 313 per week, a utilization rate of 

only 50 percent. 

 

39 For fabrication companies with more than one facility, utilization rates, maximum wafer starts, and average actual 

wafer starts per week were averaged to provide a single company response. 40 The number of semiconductor wafers that can be processed on an integrated circuit product fabrication line in 7-

day period. 
88

Figure VII-1: Average/Maximum Wafer Starts per Week (2007)

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation, 

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

29,126

2,741

629

Average 

Maximum Wafer 

Starts per Week

81%

82%

50%

Average 

Utilization Rate

23,725 Large Companies 

(10)

2,260 Medium Companies

(20)

313 Small Companies

(19)

Average Wafer 

Starts per Week

As a group, fabrication companies steadily increased overall utilization rates at U.S. fabrication 

facilities between 2003 and 2006, peaking at 87 percent (see Figures VII-2).41 In 2007, however, 

overall utilization dropped to 81 percent. Survey data shows available capacity to expand 

production existed at many facilities. It is important to note that most of the excess production 

capacity is controlled by large-size companies (see Figure VII-3). Accessing this excess capacity 

for new orders may be difficult, however, because production volumes may not be sufficient or 

because of manufacturing process compatibility. 

 

41 These utilization rates were weighted against the 2007 maximum wafer starts per week. The average actual wafer 

starts per week were estimated by multiplying the utilization rate per year by the company’s maximum wafer starts 

in 2007. These numbers were added together and divided by the all the fabrication companies’ maximum wafer 

starts per week to get a percentage. This provides a better macro-level analysis of utilization rates that takes into 

account the capacity of the various companies. 
89

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VII-2: Overall Utilization Rate Per Year 

(Weighted)

76%

82%

84%

87%

81%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Utilization Rate

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VII-3: Wafer Starts per Week (2007)

5,956

45,200

11,947

54,811

237,250

291,262

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Small Medium Large

Wafer Starts

Total Average Wafer Starts Per Week Maximum Average Wafer Starts Per Week

An examination of utilization rates for large-, medium-, and small-size companies reveals 

different levels of business activity. Large-size companies increased their utilization from 78 

percent in 2003 to 90 percent by 2006, but declined nine percent in 2007 (see Figure VII-4). In 
90

fact, eight out of 10 companies experienced reduced average utilization rates at their facilities in 

2007. Unlike large-size companies, medium-size fabricators saw utilization rates continue to 

climb in 2007, reaching 82 percent. Average utilization rates for small-size companies were 

substantially lower than those of large- and medium-size fabricators, remaining at approximately 

50 percent utilization throughout the 2003-2007 period. While utilization data indicates the 

potential to expand IC production if necessary, small-size companies remain limited by their low 

overall maximum wafer start capacity. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VII-4: Average Capacity Utilization Rate

(Weighted by 2007 Maximum Wafer Starts)

47%

51% 52% 51% 50%

72% 73% 74%

79% 82%

78%

85% 87%

80% 81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

% Capacity

Small Medium Large

FACILITY CLOSINGS BY 2011 

Of the 49 fabrication companies surveyed, eight indicated that a facility currently in use will be 

closed by 2011. One of these companies stated that two of their fabrication facilities will cease 

operation by the end of this period, bringing the total facility closings to nine. 
91

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

84

33

27

24

2011

(Projected)

-4

-2

-5

+3

Total 

Difference 

Total 88 87 86 86

Large 35 36 36 35

Medium 32 29 29 29

Small 21 22 21 22

2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 

Facilities

Figure VII-5: Number of U.S.-Based Fabrication Facilities (2003-2011)

Based on overall facility count, there will be slightly fewer fabrication facilities in the United 

States by 2011. Although the facilities count per year remains relatively stable for all company 

sizes, there is a significant degree of facility openings and closings for individual companies, 

particularly large-size ones. As stated previously, nine facilities in use in 2007 are predicted to 

shut down by 2011. Since the overall projection of facility counts remains relatively stable, this 

means that new facilities will be opening to make up for ‘lost’ capability. As companies begin to 

transition their operations, utilization at older facilities may begin to drop off before a new 

facility can open. Based on survey data, large-size companies will open at least four new 

fabrication facilities between 2007 and 2011. 
92

VIII. FABRICATION AND DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY PRODUCTS

Access to commercial integrated circuit (IC) design and fabrication capabilities in the United 

States is important for the Department of Defense (DOD) and other federal agencies to maintain 

and upgrade the capabilities of existing defense systems, as well as to produce critical parts for 

future national security applications. Survey results show at this time there are significant 

numbers of design and fabrication companies that currently provide defense-related services, or 

are willing to provide such services if called upon. 

FABRICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY-RELATED PRODUCTS

Twenty-three of 49 fabrication companies participating in the survey reported manufacturing 

national security-related IC products in their facilities in 2007 (see Figure VIII-1). Eighteen of 

these companies utilize 10 percent or less of their manufacturing capacity for national securityrelated products. Four companies, however, reported this type of business represented between 

50 and 100 percent of their production capacity. Only one of the 23 companies reported 

fabricating national security-related items in non-U.S. facilities. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VIII-1: Fabrication of National SecurityRelated IC Products

15

11

23

0 5 10 15 20 25

Not Willing to

Perform National

Security Work

Would be Willing to

Perform National

Security Work

Performed National

Security Work in

2007
93

Of the 23 companies that now fabricate national security-related IC products in the United 

States, 19 said they would be willing to dedicate more of their production capacity to such work. 

These companies, on average, declared a willingness to increase national security-related 

production by 24 percent. 

An additional 11 fabrication companies operating in the United States indicated they are willing 

to take on national security-related fabrication work under the right financial circumstances. Of 

these companies, nine would dedicate over 10 percent of their manufacturing capacity to such 

production, with two willing to potentially dedicate 90 percent or more. 

DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY-RELATED PRODUCTS

OTE survey results show that 14 out of 106 IC fabless companies (13 percent) performed work 

on national security-related IC products in 2007 (see Figure VIII-2). Five of these 14 companies 

have already committed 50 percent or more of their capabilities to national security-related work. 

If necessary, eight of the 14 firms were prepared to allocate more design capacity to this line of 

work. Three fabless companies reported conducting national security-related design work in nonU.S. facilities. 
94

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VIII-2: Design of National SecurityRelated IC Products - Fabless Companies

52

40

14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Not Willing to

Perform National

Security Work

Would be Willing to

Perform National

Security Work

Performed National

Security Work in

2007

Another 40 fabless companies indicated they would be willing to commit some portion of their 

IC design capability to national security-related products in the future. Most offered to dedicate 

one to 25 percent of current capability to national security-related work. Two companies 

indicated a willingness to focus upwards of 90 percent of capacity on such work. 

In addition to the national security design work carried out by fabless companies, 18 fabrication 

companies perform design work for national security-related products (see Figure VIII-3). 

Fourteen of the 18 companies said they were prepared to take on additional national securityrelated IC product design work. Five of these companies reported that national security-related 

work consumes 50 percent or more of their IC design capacity. For three of the five companies, 

more than 90 percent of their design capacity is allocated to national security-related work. 
95

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VIII-3: Design of National SecurityRelated IC Products - Fabrication Companies

15

16

18

0 5 10 15 20 25

Not Willing to

Perform National

Security Work

Would be Willing to

Perform National

Security Work

Performed National

Security Work in

2007

Sixteen fabrication companies indicated that they would be willing to start designing national 

security-related products. Of these companies, the majority were willing to dedicate between 10 

and 50 percent of their design capacity to national security work. Two fabricators would be 

willing to dedicate upwards of 90 percent of their overall design capacity. 

TRUSTED SUPPLIERS - BACKGROUND

For some types of electronic components, DOD and other federal agencies require that U.S. 

firms possess more than just a capability to design and fabricate national security-related 

products. They require companies to have very secure design and manufacturing environments 

for critical design and manufacturing steps. 

In 2003, DOD launched the Defense Trusted Integrated Circuits Strategy (DTICS) to prevent 

infiltration into the supply chain of IC products subjected to tampering or counterfeiting. “Trust” 

is defined as “the confidence in one’s ability to secure national security systems by assessing the 
96

integrity of the people and process used to design, generate, manufacture, and distribute national 

security critical components.” 42

The aims of the program are to assure that DOD and other federal agencies have access to 

conventional and leading edge design and manufacturing facilities where critical national 

security IC products can be produced securely. The program is structured to protect critical IC 

products in design and development phases through each step of IC fabrication, testing and 

packaging. 

Without such capability, operational readiness, battlefield effectiveness, critical infrastructure, 

and the lives of civilians and military personnel may be placed at risk. U.S. commercial, 

industrial, and military organizations have experienced problems with the integrity of electronic 

parts being compromised. Based on data from an ongoing assessment of counterfeit electronic 

parts, conducted by BIS and the Naval Air Systems Command, BIS has evidence that both new 

and older IC products can be subject to counterfeiting practices.43

A cornerstone of the DTICS effort was the initiation of the Trusted Foundry Program in 2003. 

The first trusted IC manufacturing center established in the private sector under this program was 

at IBM’s production facilities in Burlington, VT, and East Fishkill, NY, which were selected for 

their ability to provide leading edge IC product.44 These facilities can fabricate IC designs 

carrying “secret” level designations. The fabrication capabilities of these facilities include 

application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and tamper-resistant architectures for field 

programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). 

Through the Trusted Foundry Program, DOD customers, other U.S. Government agencies, and 

government contractors are assured access to certified secure design, prototyping and production 

facilities located in the United States. IC manufacturers interested in supplying certain types of 

national security IC products to DOD and other federal agencies must be accredited through the 

Trusted Foundry Access (TFA) program. The process of accrediting companies as “trusted 

 

42 Military Information Technology, Online Archives, Volume 12 Issue 3, April 25, 2008. 

43 The completed study on counterfeit electronic parts will be released in the summer of 2009. 

44 Gerald Etzold, Technical Director, Trusted Access Programs Office, National Security Agency. 
97

suppliers” is administered by the Trusted Access Programs Office (TAPO) at the National 

Security Agency (NSA) and by Defense Microelectronic Activity (DMEA).45 TAPO has 

accredited eight additional IC companies in the United States that can provide foundry services 

to DOD and its contractors.46 DOD recently expanded the scope of the trusted program to 

include other IC- related manufacturing activities. This includes IC design, IC photomask 

production, packaging, assembly, and testing of IC die. 

Three companies have been accredited to provide packaging, assembly, and test services, while 

two companies have been accredited to provide design services. Three companies are also 

accredited to aggregate specialized or low-volume IC product fabrication into consolidated 

production lots that can be manufactured more efficiently as a group rather than in separate job 

runs. According to DMEA, another 35 companies have applied for accreditation in what is now 

being called the Trusted Supplier Program.47 

The trusted supplier program continues to evolve. In March of 2008, DOD indicated that it will 

incorporate the production of printed circuit boards (PrCBs) into the DTICS program. Extending 

the DTICS strategy to include PrCBs (and possibly other PrCB-mounted components) could 

further mitigate the risks posed by tampering and counterfeiting. DOD noted that it is possible to 

extend the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) current PrCB qualification standards to assure 

trustworthiness issues in circuit board products.48

OUTLOOK FOR TRUSTED SUPPLIERS

Of the 49 fabrication companies surveyed, nine are accredited as trusted suppliers for fabrication 

work.49 An additional 14 fabrication companies reported having the self-assessed capability to 

 

45 The Defense Microelectronics Activity was established prior to the creation of the Trusted Foundry Program, but 

its capabilities were limited and it was not able to produce leading edge integrated circuit products. The National 

Security Agency also operated a foundry, but costs for modernizing it were considered prohibitive. See 

www.dmea.osd.mil/trustedic.html

46 A foundry is a wafer production and processing plant that is available on a contract basis to other companies. 47 Dan Booth, Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA), July 18, 2008. 

48 Report to United States House and Senate Armed Services Committees on Department of Defense 

Implementation of The National Research Council Committee on Manufacturing Trends in Printed Circuit Board 

Technology Recommendations, U.S. Department of Defense, March 2008.

49 Companies that have gained accreditation since the conclusion of the survey are not included in this number. 
98

conform to DOD standards to manufacture custom IC products in a trusted environment located 

in the United States (see Figure VIII-4).50 Fifteen survey respondents, some already certified in 

one or more areas and some with self-assessed capability, identified themselves as seeking or 

planning to seek Trusted Supplier status. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VIII-4: Fabrication Companies Capable of 

DOD "Trusted" Standards

14

15

9

0 5 10 15 20 25

Self-Assessed to

Meet DOD Trusted

Standard but Not

Certified

Seeking or Planning

to Seek Trusted

Status

DOD Certified as

Trusted

For 2007, 29 of 155 survey respondents declared the self-assessed ability to design custom IC 

products in a trusted, U.S.-located environment that conforms to DOD standards (see Figure 

VIII-5). Of these companies, 18 were fabless IC design companies and 11 were IC fabrication 

companies. Six fabless companies, some already certified in one or more areas and some with 

self-assessed capability, identified themselves as seeking or planning to seek Trusted Supplier 

status. Nine separate fabrication companies surveyed are accredited as trusted suppliers for 

design work. Fifteen fabrication companies, some already certified in one or more areas and 

some with self-assessed capability, identified themselves as seeking or planning to seek Trusted 

Supplier status for design work. 

 

50 Self-determination for being qualified to act as a trusted foundry does not mean companies actually can meet 

Department of Defense standards. Companies must obtain certification for the trusted supplier program through the 

Trusted Access Programs Office at the National Security Agency and the Defense Microelectronics Activity. 
99

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VIII-4: Companies Capable of DOD 

"Trusted" Design Standards

18

6

11

15

9

0 5 10 15 20 25

Self-Assessed to

Meet DOD Trusted

Standard but Not

Certified

Seeking or Planning

to Seek Trusted

Status

DOD Certified as

Trusted

Fabless Companies Fabrication Companies

As for why some companies are not interested in performing national security work, survey 

participants provided the following comments: 

• Company is focused on commercial, industrial, and/or consumer markets; 

• Can not easily isolate national security IC work from commercial work; 

• Order volume and predictability for national security products is too uncertain; and 

• Concern that working with federal agencies would be too complicated. 

A number of companies left open the possibility that they would undertake IC national securityrelated design and/or manufacturing work. These IC companies explained that they have not 

pursued work in national security-related product areas because they do not understand the 

opportunities or comprehend the requirements and possible associated costs. 
100

IX. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS BY 

 FABRICATION COMPANIES

OTE queried the 49 fabrication companies regarding their ability to execute seven manufacturing 

steps for the production of integrated circuit products. These functions include mask making, 

wafer manufacturing (front and back ends), wafer sorting, circuit testing, packaging, and final 

testing.51 Fabrication firms reported their in-house production capabilities and capabilities 

outsourced to domestic and non-U.S. firms. Lastly, firms were asked about the prospects for 

maintaining and outsourcing future capabilities to perform each of these manufacturing steps 

through 2011.52

U.S.-BASED MANUFACTURING STEPS

A significant number of fabrication companies have the capability to conduct five of seven 

manufacturing steps: front- and back-end wafer manufacturing, wafer sorting, circuit testing, and 

final testing and inspection (see Figure IX-1). More than 80 percent of fabrication companies are 

capable of performing some or all of these manufacturing steps at U.S. facilities they own and 

operate. There are a limited number of companies, however, that are able to conduct their own 

mask making operations in the United States. In 2007, only seven, or 14 percent of fabrication 

companies, produced masks in their U.S. owned and operated facilities. The remaining 

manufacturing step, packaging, is also commonly outsourced by 27 of the 49 companies. 

 

51 For definitions of these seven manufacturing steps, please see Appendix C. 

52 A number of fabrication companies stated that for certain operations they maintain in-house capability, but they 

also use outside domestic and foreign companies. 
101

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IX-1: Manufacturing Steps Performed at U.S. 

Owned and Operated Facilities

7

45

41 39 39

21

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Mask Making Wafer

Manufacturing

(Front End)

Wafer

Manufacturing

(Back End)

Wafer Sorting Circuit Testing Packaging Final Test &

Inspection

Manufacturing Step

Number of Companies

Fabrication companies only utilize a small number of U.S.-based vendors for six manufacturing 

steps, seemingly to augment their in-house capabilities (see Figure IX-2). The exception to this 

practice is mask making. More than 71 percent of the fabrication companies, or 35 firms, utilize 

other U.S.-based vendors for this part of the production process. Fabrication companies 

employing outside vendors to conduct specific manufacturing steps (other than mask making) are 

more likely to use non-U.S. firms than U.S.-based vendors (see Figures IX-2 and IX-3). 
102

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IX-2: Manufacturing Steps Outsourced to Other 

U.S.-Based Vendors

35

3 2

4

6

10

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Mask Making Wafer

Manufacturing

(Front End)

Wafer

Manufacturing

(Back End)

Wafer Sorting Circuit Test Packaging Final Test &

Inspection

Manufacturing Step

Number of Companies

NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF MANUFACTURING STEPS

When IC fabricators use offshore facilities to conduct one or more of the seven manufacturing 

steps, they tend to use non-affiliated facilities more often than non-U.S. facilities they own and 

operate (see Figure IX-3). Although the use of non-affiliated facilities was more prevalent, the 

companies did report using a significant number of their own non-U.S. facilities. 

Dependence on non-affiliated companies to perform production steps is greatest for mask 

making. Just seven fabrication companies perform mask making in their own U.S.-based 

facilities, and only five fabrication companies own and operate non-U.S. facilities that can 

perform this manufacturing step. Most fabrication companies rely on non-affiliated domestic 

and non-U.S. vendors to produce the masks they require to manufacture IC products. 
103

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IX-3: Foreign Outsourcing of IC Manufacturing Steps

5

12

14 14 15

19 20

17

22 23

17

19

30

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mask Making Wafer

Manufacturing

(Front End)

Wafer

Manufacturing

(Back End)

Wafer Sorting Circuit Test Packaging Final Test &

Inspection

Manufacturing Step

Number of Companies

Facilities owned outside the U.S. Facilities owned by foreign companies outside the U.S.

Geographically, the overwhelming majority of manufacturing steps outsourced by U.S. 

fabricators, 88 percent, are sent to Asia (see Figure IX-4). Taiwan and China were the most cited 

destinations, with a combined 33 percent of all non-U.S. outsourced manufacturing steps. Only 

seven companies reported outsourcing to European countries, mostly to the United Kingdom, 

representing six percent of destination countries. Outsourcing to Canada and Mexico accounts 

for three percent of the total destination countries. 
104

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IX-4: Outsourcing of Manufacturing Steps - 

Destination Countries

South Korea

10%

Singapore

7% Japan

7%

Thailand

3% Malaysia

13%

Philippians

13%

China

15%

Taiwan

17%

Other

15%

Other

3%

Europe

6%

Other Asia

3%

North America

3%

OUTSOURCING BY TECHNOLOGY NODE AND MATERIAL TYPE

Companies were asked to identify the technology nodes outsourced ranging from 10,000 

nanometers (nm) to less than 65 nm. For the purposes of this assessment, OTE combined the 15 

distinct technology node categories into four ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm; 1,000 nm – 250 nm; 

250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm. 

Fabrication companies, in addition to maintaining domestic capabilities, outsource 

manufacturing steps across all technology nodes, with the 1,000 nm – 250 nm and the 250 nm – 

65 nm ranges being the most common (see Figure IX-5). Twenty-five companies, more than 

half of all fabrication companies, outsource fabrication steps over the 1,000 nm – 250 nm range. 

Nine companies outsource fabrication steps for products at less than 65 nm. As indicated earlier, 

only six companies can manufacture at this leading-edge technology node range, and five of 

these companies outsource fabrication steps at less than 65 nm. Thus, more fabrication 

companies outsource at the leading-edge technology node range than are fabricating in the 

United States. 
105

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IX-5: Outsourcing by Technology Node Range

18

25

23

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

10,000 nm - 1,000 nm 1,000 nm - 250 nm 250 nm - 65 nm Less than 65 nm

Technology Node

Number of Companies

Outsourcing practices are also revealed by examining the types of materials employed in IC 

products for which fabrication is outsourced. Production functions for IC products based on bulk 

silicon process technology are most often outsourced, followed by product employing silicon-oninsulator. The types of devices employing these two materials for which some manufacturing 

steps are most frequently outsourced are custom ASICs and mixed signal ASICs. 

REASONS FOR OUTSOURCING

The 49 fabrication companies were asked to identify the primary reasons for outsourcing 

production to non-U.S. locations. The top three reasons were lower costs, maximizing profits, 

and competitive pricing pressures (see Figure IX-6). Companies selected these three reasons 

nearly twice as often as the next highest reason, a lack of tax incentives in the United States. 

Very few companies found the American workforce to be insufficient for their needs. Direct and 

indirect foreign government subsidies were a factor for a small number of companies. Based on 

the survey responses, it appears competition and economics are the driving forces behind U.S. 

firms shifting IC fabrication operations overseas. 
106

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IX-6: Reasons for Outsourcing

Insufficient U.S. Workforce 3

Direct Foreign Government Subsidies 3

No U.S. Contractor Found 4

Indirect Foreign Government Subsidies 5

No U.S. Capability 10

To Assure Better Market Access 12

To Better Serve Overseas Markets 14

Lack of Tax Incentives 15

Competitive Pricing Pressures 28

To Maximize Profits 29

Lower Costs 39

Reasons for Outsourcing Number of Companies

RETENTION OF MANUFACTURING STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011 

Fabrication companies were asked to predict if they will maintain capability to perform each of 

seven IC manufacturing steps at their U.S.-based operations through 2011. Most firms anticipate 

maintaining capability to perform manufacturing steps at U.S. owned and operated facilities 

through this period (see Figure IX-7). The number of companies retaining fabrication capability 

will remain relatively stable, although there will be a slight decrease in the number of companies 

capable of in-house production for each of the seven manufacturing steps. 
107

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IX-7: Manufacturing Steps Retained by U.S. Owned and 

Operated Facilities (2008-2011)

6

43

40 38 38

19

31

1 2 1 1 1 2 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Mask Making Wafer

Manufacturing

(Front End)

Wafer

Manufacturing

(Back End)

Wafer Sorting Circuit Test Packaging Final Test &

Inspection

Manufacturing Step

Number of Companies

Will Retain Capability Will Not Retain Capability

The majority of fabrication companies plan to retain their current level of manufacturing 

capability, with many projecting increases through 2011. 53 For example, U.S.-based capability 

to perform front end wafer manufacturing will increase as 19 companies expand their domestic 

capability (see Figure IX-8). Levels of circuit testing will also increase significantly, with 15 

companies projected to expand domestic capabilities through 2011. In-house mask making is the 

only manufacturing step where there is no planned increase in production capability over the 

2007-2011 period. 

 

53 In contrast to the previous section detailing outsourcing trends, this section explains whether levels of production 

capability will increase, decrease, or remain unchanged through 2011. A company can outsource a portion of a 

manufacturing step while increasing its base-line capacity to perform this step in its U.S.-based facilities. 
108

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IX-8: Projected U.S.-Based Capability Trends for 

2007 - 2011

19

14 13

15

6

12

15

21

19

22 21

17

20

1

5

9

6

4 5 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mask Making Wafer

Manufacturing

(Front End)

Wafer

Manufacturing

(Back End)

Wafer Sorting Circuit Test Packaging Final Test &

Inspection

Manufacturing Step

Number of Companies

Increase No Change Decline

PROJECTED U.S.-BASED AND NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING

The number of companies that anticipate outsourcing manufacturing steps to U.S.-based vendors 

will remain steady through 2011, which is similar to predictions for in-house fabrication activity. 

During this period, the number of companies outsourcing to U.S.-based vendors is projected to 

increase slightly for wafer manufacturing (back end), packaging, and final test and inspection. 

Conversely, the number of fabricators outsourcing the mask making and wafer manufacturing 

(front end) manufacturing steps to U.S.-based vendors is projected to decrease slightly (see 

Figure IX-9). 
109

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IX-9: Manufacturing Steps Outsourced to Other 

U.S.-Based Vendors (2008-2011)

35

3 2

4

6

10

4

32

1

3 4

6

11

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Mask Making Wafer

Manufacturing

(Front End)

Wafer

Manufacturing

(Back End)

Wafer Sorting Circuit Test Packaging Final Test &

Inspection

Manufacturing Step

Number of Companies

Outsourced to Vendor in 2007 Will Outsource to Vendors by 2011

The number of companies performing mask making and front end wafer manufacturing in U.S.-

based facilities is decreasing along with the utilization of U.S.-based vendors for these 

manufacturing steps. This suggests that a portion of these operations will move to non-U.S. 

facilities.54 Specifically, four companies indicated that by 2011 they will shift their entire mask 

making and front end wafer manufacturing to non-U.S. facilities. 

As highlighted in Figure IX-10, fabrication companies anticipate increasing outsourced 

production capability for all seven manufacturing steps by 2011. 55 The outsourcing of 

packaging is due to increase the most, with 47 percent of fabrication companies planning to 

expand domestic and non-U.S., non-affiliated operations. Also noteworthy is the fact that the 17 

companies that will increase outsourcing of mask making capabilities. With minimal in-house 

production, mask making is an area that should be monitored in the future. 

 

54 This assumes that IC production will remain at current levels. 

55 It should be noted that outsourcing of capability in this context does not necessarily indicate a company is fully 

outsourcing that capability. Many companies may split manufacturing steps between U.S. owned and operated 

facilities, U.S.-based vendors, and/or overseas facilities. 
110

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IX-10: Projected Outsourcing of Manufacturing 

Steps (2007 - 2011)

17 18 17 16 15

23

20 21

11 10 11

13

11 10

1 1

3 3

1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mask Making Wafer

Manufacturing

(Front End)

Wafer

Manufacturing

(Back End)

Wafer Sorting Circuit Test Packaging Final Test &

Inspection

Manufacturing Step

Number of Companies

Increase No Change Decline
111

X. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION 

 COMPANIES

OTE queried fabrication companies regarding their ability to perform seven steps in designing 

integrated circuit (IC) products: digital, analog, RTL design, synthesis, physical layout, function 

verification, and test vector generation. Fabrication firms reported on their U.S. owned and 

operated capabilities, design functions outsourced to United States and non-U.S. companies, and 

future capabilities to perform each of these design steps. This chapter focuses exclusively on 

design step performance of 49 U.S.-based fabrication companies through 2011. 

U.S.-BASED DESIGN STEPS

More than half of fabrication companies are capable of performing all seven design steps in their 

U.S.-based facilities (see Figure X-1). Synthesis is the design step least likely to be performed 

in-house, with only 49 percent fabrication companies (24 firms) doing so. Analog design is most 

commonly performed in-house, with 40 fabrication companies, or 82 percent, doing so. Four 

fabrication companies reported having no design capability in their U.S.-operated facilities. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure X-1: Design Steps at U.S. Owned and Operated Facilities 

- Fabrication Companies

34

40

25 24

36

29

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies
112

Most IC fabrication companies do not outsource any design steps to U.S.-based vendors (see 

Figure X-2). The two design steps most frequently outsourced to U.S.-based vendors are RTL 

design and synthesis, but only four fabrication companies do so for each step. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure X-2: Design Steps Outsourced to Other U.S.-Based 

Vendors - Fabrication Companies

2 2

4 4

3 3 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies

NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN STEPS

Overall, 20 fabrication companies (41 percent) outsource design steps to non-U.S. firms to some 

degree (see Figure X-3). The majority of these companies outsource to non-U.S. facilities they 

own and operate. The three design steps most frequently outsourced to affiliated non-U.S. 

facilities are digital (17 companies), analog (16 companies), and physical layout (14 companies). 

With regard to non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities, only seven companies, 14 percent of the total, 

outsource analog design, the highest level of outsourcing amongst the seven design steps. 
113

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure X-3: Outsourcing to Foreign Owned/Operated and NonAffiliated Facilities – Fabrication Companies

17 16

10 10

14

11 10

5

7

5

3 4 5 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Funcation

Verficiation

Test Vector

Generation

Number of Companies

Own/Operated Non-U.S. Facility Non-Affiliated Non-U.S. Facility

 

When IC fabrication companies outsource design steps to non-U.S. firms, they do so to providers 

in a wide range of countries (see Figure X-4). China and India are the most common individual 

destinations, but are considerably less common for design steps as opposed to manufacturing 

operations. As a region, European countries are more prevalent destinations for the outsourcing 

of design operations by fabricators, representing 35 percent of outsourcing operations. 
114

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure X-4: Outsourcing of Design Steps - Countries

Japan

8%

Other Asia

5%

Other

10%

Other

42%

France

8%

Taiwan

8%

Other Europe

27%

India

15%

China

19%

RETENTION OF DESIGN STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011 

Nearly all IC fabrication companies expect to retain their ability to perform core design steps at 

their U.S.-based facilities through 2011 (see Figure X-5). In total, only three companies will not 

retain their ability to perform one or more design steps in-house through 2011. The digital 

design step will experience the largest reduction, with three fabrication companies, or six 

percent, projected to diminish capability. 
115

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure X-5: Design Steps Retained by U.S. Owned and Operated 

Facilities (2008-2011) - Fabrication Companies

31

38

25 25

36

29

26

3 2 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies

Will Retain Capability Not Retain Capability

Fabrication companies do not expect to change the amount of design work done in their U.S. 

facilities (Figure X-6). For five of the seven design steps, 37 percent of companies anticipate no 

change in their design capability through 2011, with the test vector generation and digital steps 

close behind. There is a significant trend, however, of increasing in-house design capability 

through 2011. Capability to perform the digital design step will increase the most, with 18 

companies expanding their operations in the United States. 
116

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure X-6: Projected U.S.-Based Capability Trends for 

2007 - 2011 - Fabrication Companies

11 12

15

7

6

9

16

18 18 18 18 18 17

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies

Increase No Change Decrease

IC fabrication companies reported a wide-range of answers on projected outsourcing of design 

steps to U.S.-based vendors. Although most companies do not currently utilize U.S.-based 

vendors to perform design steps, a few fabrication firms predict outsourcing to U.S.-based 

companies will increase by 2011. This outsourcing will most likely be in the digital, analog, 

RTL design, and synthesis design steps (see Figure X-7). Outsourcing of physical layout and 

function verification steps is anticipated to remain steady, while all fabrication companies expect 

to cease using U.S.-based vendors to perform test vector generation design work. 
117

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure X-7: Design Steps Outsourced to Other U.S.-Based 

Vendors (2008-2011) - Fabrication Companies

2 2

4 4

3 3 3 3

6 6 6

3 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies

Outsourced to Vendor in 2007 Will Outsource to Vendors

For most IC fabrication companies, the level of outsourcing of design steps will not change 

through 2011 (see Figure X-8). However, 31 percent of fabricators (15 firms) plan to increase 

their level of outsourcing of at least one design step over this period. Of these companies, 10 (20 

percent of all fabrication firms) expect to expand their level of outsourcing for all seven design 

steps. Data shows that fabrication companies intend to maintain design capability in the United 

States while expanding outsourcing operations. 
118

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure X-8: Projected Outsourcing of Design Steps

(2007 - 2011) - Fabrication Companies

11 11

13

14

10 10

14

20

15

14

15 15

14

11

1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies

Increase No Change Decline
119

XI. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABLESS 

 COMPANIES

OTE queried 106 fabless companies regarding their ability to perform seven main design steps in 

the development of integrated circuit (IC) products. These steps include digital, analog, RTL 

design, synthesis, physical layout, function verification, and test vector generation.56 Fabless 

firms reported on their U.S. owned and operated capabilities, design functions outsourced to 

U.S.-based vendors and non-U.S. companies, and future capabilities to perform each of these 

design steps through 2011. 

U.S.-BASED DESIGN STEPS

The vast majority of design companies can perform all seven design steps at U.S. owned and 

operated facilities (see Figure XI-1). Although analog design work is the least likely step to be 

performed in-house, more than 76 percent of the 106 design companies (81 firms) have the 

capability. Ninety-two percent of the 106 design companies (97 firms) can perform the digital 

design step in U.S. owned and operated facilities, the most frequently identified capability. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XI-1: Design Steps at U.S. Owned and Operated Facilities - 

Fabless Companies

97

81 84 83 86

90

82

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies

 

56 For definitions of these seven manufacturing steps, please see Appendix C. 
120

Twenty-one fabless companies outsource specific design steps to U.S.-based vendors (see Figure 

XI-2). Analog and test vector generation are most frequently cited as design steps outsourced to 

U.S.-based vendors. Only eight percent of companies (nine firms) outsource each of the analog 

and test vector generation design steps. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XI-2: Design Steps Outsourced to Other U.S.-Based 

Vendors - Fabless Companies

2

9

2

5

7

6

9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies

NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN STEPS

In addition to outsourcing to U.S.-based vendors, companies were asked to describe their nonU.S. outsourcing activities. Forty-nine of the 106 IC design companies (46 percent) outsource 

design steps to non-U.S. locations at some level (see Figure XI-3). Most of the companies that 

reported outsourcing design steps to other countries do so to non-U.S. facilities they own and 

operate. A smaller number of design firms outsource to non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities. 
121

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XI-3: Outsourcing to Foreign Owned/Operated and NonAffiliated Facilities – Fabless Companies

35

27

33 33 31 32

35

24

20 19 17

22 22

19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Funcation

Verficiation

Test Vector

Generation

Number of Companies

Own/Operated Non-U.S. Facility Non-Affiliated Non-U.S. Facility

A significant number of IC design companies simultaneously outsource design steps to both 

affiliated and non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities. For example, 21 of the 24 design companies 

that outsource the digital design step to non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities also have non-U.S. 

facilities they own performing the same step. 

Fabless firms were also asked to identify the locations of the non-U.S. facilities where design 

work is performed. The largest number of fabless companies, 32 percent, outsource design steps 

to Asia, with 12 percent going to Taiwan and nine percent going to China (see Figure XI-4). 

Twenty-nine percent of the companies outsource to Europe, with eight percent using facilities in 

the United Kingdom. A quarter of the fabless companies outsource to India, and seven percent 

outsource to Israel and to Canada, respectively. 
122

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XI-4: Outsourcing of Design Steps 

- Destination Countries

Israel

7%

Canada

7%

Other Europe

21%

Other Asia

11%

UK

8%

China

9%

Taiwan

12%

India

25%

Other

33%

Design of IC products is most commonly outsourced in the 1,000 nm – 250 nm, 250 nm – 65 nm 

and the less than 65 nm technology node ranges. Outsourced design work is primarily for 

devices employing bulk silicon; design steps for devices that employ silicon-on-insulator and 

silicon germanium are much less commonly outsourced. Design work for ASIC products is 

outsourced to a greater degree than design work for gate arrays or memory devices. Finally, the 

vast majority of outsourced design work occurs for conventional IC products; very few design 

steps are outsourced for radiation resistant products. 

 

RETENTION OF DESIGN STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011 

Nearly all fabless companies expect to retain capability to perform seven main design steps at 

their U.S. owned and operated facilities through 2011. A slight drop is expected in the number 

of companies with capabilities in each of the seven categories, with the most companies 

expecting to eliminate the physical layout design step (see Figure XI-5). Only four of the 106 

companies (less than 4 percent), however, plan to eliminate capability for the physical layout 

step at their U.S. owned and operated facilities. 
123

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XI-5: Design Steps Retained by U.S. Owned and Operated 

Facilities (2008-2011) - Fabless Companies

95

78 81 81 82

89

81

2 3 2 1 1 3 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies

Will Retain Capability Not Retain Capability

Fabless companies were also asked to project the level of capability they will have for each of 

the seven design steps at their U.S.-based facilities through 2011. The majority of fabless 

companies expect to increase their capability across all design steps (see Figure XI-6). A lesser 

number of fabless companies predicted no changes in their design step capabilities. Very few 

fabless companies plan to decrease capability levels through 2011. 
124

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XI-6: Projected U.S.-Based Capability Trends for 

2007 - 2011 - Fabless Companies

56

52 49

45 47 48

30 31 32 32 34 33 32

2 3 2 4 3 3 3

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies

Increase No Change Decrease

PROJECTED U.S.-BASED AND NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING

As stated previously, very few fabless companies outsource the seven design steps to U.S.-based 

vendors; these low levels of outsourcing are projected to continue through 2011 (see Figure XI7). The outsourcing of three design steps are projected to decline: physical layout, functional 

verification, and test vector generation. The RTL design and synthesis design steps will see 

slight increases in U.S.-based vendor outsourcing. All companies that currently outsource the 

digital and analog design steps are expected to continue to do so through 2011. 
125

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XI-7: Design Steps Outsourced to Other U.S.-Based 

Vendors (2008-2011) - Fabless Companies

2

9

2

5

7

6

9

2

9

5

6

4

2

3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies

Outsourced to Vendor in 2007 Will Outsource to Vendors

Most fabless companies project that the amount of outsourcing will not change through 2011 

(see Figure XI-8). Nevertheless, the data shows that approximately 40 percent of fabless 

companies expect to increase their levels of outsourcing through 2011. When compared with the 

data from Figure X-5, which shows that most companies will retain design capability in their 

U.S.-based facilities, this indicates that a portion of design companies will seek to expand their 

operations overseas while maintaining robust capability domestically. 
126

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XI-8: Projected Outsourcing of Design Steps 

(2007 - 2011) - Fabless Companies

23

25 25 26

20

22 22

32

35

30 29

33

31 31

5

1

3 2 3 4 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Digital Analog RTL Design Synthesis Physical

Layout

Functional

Verification

Test Vector

Generation

Design Step

Number of Companies

Increase No Change Decline
127

XII. INDUSTRY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

As a group, integrated circuit (IC) fabrication and fabless companies surveyed by OTE reported 

steady increases in net sales over a four-year reporting period from 2003 through 2006. 

Combined net sales climbed from $81.4 billion in 2003 to $116 billion in 2006, growing an 

average of 12.7 percent annually. 

IC fabrication companies accounted for the bulk of combined industry net sales, averaging 75 

percent of total sales over the four-year period. Fabricators’ net sales grew from $62 billion in 

2003 to $83.5 billion in 2006, with an average increase per year of 10.6 percent (see figure XII1). Fabless companies accounted for the rest of combined industry net sales. Their net sales 

grew from $19 billion in 2003 to $33 billion in 2006, with an average increase per year of 19.3 

percent. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XII-1: Net Sales

$62.1

$73.0

$81.4 $83.6

$19.3 $23.8 $27.1 $32.8

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Fabrication Companies Fabless Companies
128

FABRICATION NET SALES

In analyzing net sales data, IC fabricators’ were categorized as small-, medium-, and large-size 

based on average net corporate sales from 2003 – 2006 (see Figures XII-2 and XII-3). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Total 49 -

Size Number of Companies Net Sales 

Figure XII-2: Size Classification – Fabrication Companies

Medium 20 $100 million - $1 billion

Large 10 Greater than $1 billion

Small 19 Less than $100 million

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XII-3: Fabrication Net Sales

$56.1

$66.2

$74.5 $75.5

$5.8 $6.5 $6.6 $7.7

$0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4

$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Large Medium Small

Large-size companies reported net sales of $75.5 billion in 2006 up from $56.1 billion in 2003, 

an average annual increase of 8.6 percent. Five of the ten large-size fabrication companies 

dominate the industry, accounting for $240 billion of $272.3 billion nets sales (88 percent) 
129

posted for the 2003-2006 period by the large-size companies. Net sales for these five companies 

over the four-year period grew at a faster rate, 9.2 percent, than for all IC fabricators as a group. 

The lower five large-size firms combined net earnings totaled only $32 billion in 2003-2006, 

although their growth rate as a group, an average of 21.9 percent annually, was stronger than the 

top five large-size firms. Their net sales rose from $5.7 billion in 2003 to $10.3 billion in 2006 

(see Figure XII-4). 

Medium-size fabrication companies totaled $26.5 billion in net sales over the four-year period. 

Net sales increased from $5.7 billion in 2003 to $7.7 billion in 2006, an average annual percent 

change per year of 10.2 percent. 

Small-size fabrication companies recorded the lowest net sales, $1.2 billion from 2003 to 2006. 

Their combined gains in net sales, however, were high, increasing from $233 million in 2003 to 

$402 million in 2006, an average percent change per year of 20.1 percent. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XII-4: Fabrication Net Sales –

Excluding Top 5 Companies

$5.7

$7.1

$9.2

$10.3

$5.8

$6.5 $6.6

$7.7

$0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Large Medium Small
130

IC DESIGN NET SALES

In analyzing net sales data, fabless companies were categorized as small-, medium-, and largesized based on average net corporate sales from 2003 – 2006 (see Figure XII-5). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Total 106 -

Size Number of Companies Net Sales 

Figure XII-5: Size Classification – Fabless Companies

Medium 27 $25 million - $350 million

Large 14 Greater than $350 million

Small 65 Less than $25 million

Based on average net corporate sales from 2003 – 2006, large-size fabless companies reported 

$92.6 billion in net sales over the four-year period, accounting for 90 percent of total fabless net 

sales. Their net sales increased from $17 billion in 2003 to $29 billion in 2006, with an average 

percent change per year of 19.2 percent (see Figure XII-6). 

Making up nine percent of total design net sales, medium-size fabless companies totalled $9.6 

billion from 2003 to 2006. Their net sales increased at a slightly slower pace than large-size 

design companies, increasing from 1.9 billion in 2003 to $3 billion in 2006 with an average 

percent change per year of 16 percent. 

Small-size fabless companies registered just one percent of total design sales, totalling $912 

million in net sales over the four-year period. This group, however, grew at the fastest pace with 

an average increase of 80 percent, rising from $82.6 million in 2003 to $469 million in 2006. 
131

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XII-6: Fabless Net Sales

$17.4

$21.5

$24.4

$29.4

$1.9 $2.2 $2.5 $2.9

$0.1 $0.1 $0.2 $0.5

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Large Medium Small

CURRENT RATIO

To gain insight into the competitive position of U.S. IC fabricators and fabless companies, OTE 

used a standard business measure, the current ratio. It measures the ability of a company to pay 

its debts with its existing resources over the next twelve months.57 A ratio score of 2.0 or above 

is generally considered to be acceptable, because it means a company’s assets are double its 

liabilities. 

For perspective on financial performance relative to peers, individual company scores were 

weighed against the overall industry current ratio. As a group, fabrication and fabless companies 

had a combined average current ratio of 2.77 for the four-year period. The current ratio score 

during the period slipped from 2.88 in 2003 to 2.71 in 2006 (see Figure XII-7). 

 

57 The current ratio is calculated by dividing current assets by current liabilities. 
132

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XII-7: Current Ratio

2.8 2.7

2.4 2.4

3.3 3.2

3.5 3.5

2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Fabrication Companies Fabless Companies Total

For fabrication companies as a group, the current ratio declined from 2.75 in 2003 to 2.38 in 

2006. This decrease is attributed largely to sliding financial performance in some large-size IC 

fabrication companies, which caused their collective current ratio to fall from 2.7 in 2003 to 2.25 

in 2006 (see Figure XII-8). In contrast, both medium- and small-size IC fabrication companies 

saw current ratios scores improve for their respective groups. 
133

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XII-8: Fabrication Companies’ Current 

Ratio – By Company Size

2.7 2.6

2.3 2.3

3.0

3.3

2.9 3.1

2.7

3.0

3.6

3.8

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Large Medium Small

A review of the financial information provided by nine individual large-size fabricators showed 

that three companies experienced decreases in current ratio scores from 2003 to 2006, indicating 

either an increase in debt or a decrease in assets. One large-size company posted an average 

current ratio below 2.0 for each of the four years, but improved its current ratio score over 

reporting period. Three large-size companies’ financial performance produced current ratios that 

hovered between 2.0 and 3.0 over the four years; one of these companies experienced a net 

decrease in its ratio score for the reporting period. 

Of the 17 medium-size IC fabricators providing adequate financial data, 10 companies scored 

three or higher for the 2003-2006 period. Seven fabricators, however, saw current ratios fall 

between 2003 and 2006. Five medium-size companies’ current ratios averaged between 2.0 and 

3.0, with a decrease in current ratios occurring for two companies over the survey period. One 

medium-size company’s average current ratio scored below 2.0 over the four-year period, but it 

improved its current ratio during this time. 

Only seven small-size IC fabricators provided enough financial data to enable OTE to calculate 

current ratios. Three of these companies experienced decreases in their current ratios over the 
134

survey period. Three small-size companies had average current ratios below 2.0, but all managed 

to improve their scores over the four-year period. One small-size company’s current ratio 

average floated between 2.0 and 3.0, but the score trended down between 2003 and 2006. 

The financial performances of many fabless IC design companies appear stronger than those of 

IC fabricators when the average current ratios of the two industry segments are compared. 

Indeed, industry analysts note that fabrication companies have greater scale in terms of net sales 

and more capital assets that can be used to secure debt.58 This is not an absolute measure of 

financial strength, however. 

IC Design companies surveyed by OTE had an average current ratio for the four-year period of 

3.37 (see Figure XII-7). The score is attributable to improvement in company financial 

performance, which lifted the average current ratios from 3.26 in 2003 to 3.51 in 2006. This 

improvement can be traced primarily to current ratios of large- and medium-size design 

companies. Small-size IC design companies as a group saw their score fall from 4.73 in 2003 to 

2.7 in 2006 see Figure XII-9). 

Of the 11 large-size IC design companies that reported sufficient financial information, six had 

current ratios over 3.0. Five other companies, however, saw current ratios decline from 2003 to 

2006. Three of these companies scored average current ratios below 2.0, though only one 

experienced a decrease in its current ratio over the four-year period. 

Among the 23 medium-size IC design companies providing adequate financial data, seven 

experienced decreases in their current ratios over the four-year period. Five companies had 

current ratios between 2.0 and 3.0, two of which saw current ratios fall from 2003 to 2006. Only 

two design companies scored average current ratios below 2.0, but scores improved for both of 

those firms over the survey period. 

 

58 Observations made to OTE in discussions with Robert Markunas, consultant, SoCit LLC; and Tristen Gerra, 

analyst, Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., October 2008. 
135

Thirty-five small-size IC design companies provided financial data sufficient for calculating 

current ratios. For 18 companies current ratios fell from 2003 to 2006. Six small-size companies 

had current ratios between 2.0 and 3.0, and two experienced decreases in their current ratios over 

the four-year period. Four companies had current ratios below 2.0, and only one saw 

improvement in its current ratio over the survey period. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XII-9: Fabless Companies’ Current Ratio 

- By Company Size

3.1 3.1 3.4 3.4

4.0 3.8

4.9 4.7 4.7

5.2

4.0

2.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Large Medium Small
136

XIII. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED EMPLOYMENT

Expenditures for research and development (R&D) have been a pivotal force propelling 

innovation and expansion in the semiconductor industry over the last four decades. With 

intensifying global competition, R&D spending remains critical to sustaining the 

competitiveness of U.S. designers and manufacturers of integrated circuit (IC) products. 

From 2003 to 2006, IC fabrication and fabless companies allocated a total of $68 billion for 

R&D activities (see Figure XIII-1). These expenditures rose from $14.9 billion in 2003 to $19.9 

billion in 2006, a 34 percent increase.59

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-1: Total R&D Expenditures

$11.1 $12.0 $12.4

$14.1

$3.8 $4.1 $4.8

$5.8

$-

$3

$6

$9

$12

$15

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Fabrication Companies Fabless Companies

To better understand R&D spending by IC firms, expenditures were weighed against net sales 

figures.60 R&D spending as a percent of net sales was relatively steady for fabrication 

companies, decreasing from a high of 18 percent in 2003 to a low of 15 percent in 2005, before 

 

59 2003 data is based on 115 company responses; 2006 data is based on 133 company responses. 

60 Calculated by dividing company R&D expenditures by net sales figures. 
137

rising again to 17 percent in 2006 (see Figure XII-2).61 For fabless companies, R&D spending as 

a percent of net sales also remained relatively constant, averaging 23 percent in 2003 and then 

leveling off to 20 percent during each of the following three years.62

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-2: R&D Spending as a Percent of Net Sales

18%

16% 15%

17%

23%

20% 20% 20%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Percent of Net Sales

Fabrication Companies Fabless Companies

IC fabrication companies allotted $49.5 billion to R&D investment over the 2003- 2006 period 

(see Figure XIII-3). Fabrication R&D expenditures during this period rose from $11 billion to 

$14 billion, an increase of nearly 28 percent.63 The top five fabrication firms were responsible 

for $38.4 billion, or 77 percent, of total IC fabrication company R&D expenditures. In 2006 

alone, the top five fabrication firms spent $10.8 billion on R&D, 76 percent of the $14 billion 

total fabrication R&D expenditures. 

 

61 Data is based on 77 IC fabless company responses. 

62 Data is based on 40 IC fabrication company responses. 

63 The $14 billion figure is based on 41 IC Fabrication company responses in 2006. 
138

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-3: Fabrication Companies’ R&D Spending

$11.1 $12.0 $12.4

$14.1

$-

$3

$6

$9

$12

$15

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year 

$ Billions

Absent the top five fabrication firms, the remaining companies spent $11.1 billion, 23 percent of 

total fabrication company R&D expenditures, between 2003 and 2006. R&D outlays by this 

segment of fabricators increased from $2.6 billion to $3.3 billion over the four-year period (see 

Figure XIII-4). 
139

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-4: Fabrication R&D Spending -

Excluding Top 5 Companies

$2.6 $2.6 $2.6

$3.3

$-

$1

$2

$3

$4

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

While smaller than fabrication investment, fabless R&D outlays increased steadily over the 

period, representing 29 percent of overall R&D expenditures. Spending rose from $3.8 billion in 

2003 to $5.8 billion in 2006, an increase of more than 50 percent (see Figure XIII-5).64

 

64 Based on 92 IC fabless company responses in 2006, 78 design company responses in 2003. 
140

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-5: Fabless Companies’ R&D Spending

$3.8 $4.1

$4.8

$5.8

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

R&D EXPENDITURES BY COMPANY SIZE

An examination of R&D spending based on company size reveals differences in expenditure 

levels within as well as across fabless and fabrication sectors. To perform this analysis, IC 

companies were categorized as small-, medium-, and large-sized based on average net corporate 

sales from 2003-2006. 

In terms of expenditures, the 10 large-size fabrication firms surveyed (net sales over $1 billion) 

accounted for the largest percentage of R&D spending (see Figure XIII-6).65 They allocated 

$43.8 billion to R&D between 2003 and 2006. In 2006, their R&D expenditures reached $12.5 

billion, 89 percent of all fabrication R&D spending. 

 

65 Number of fabrication respondents for 2006 data: Large (10); Medium (18); Small (12).
141

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-6: Fabrication R&D Spending 

- By Company Size

$0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1

$1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.4

$9.7

$10.6 $11.0

$12.5

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

$11

$12

$13

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Small Medium Large

Eighteen medium-size fabrication companies (net sales between $100 million and $1 billion) 

accounted for the second-largest percentage of R&D spending by fabricators. They allocated a 

total of $5 billion between 2003 and 2006. In 2006, their R&D expenditures reached $1.4 

billion, 10 percent of all fabrication R&D spending. 

The twelve small-size IC fabrication firms (net sales below $100 million) accounted for the 

smallest percentage of R&D spending. They allocated $254 million to R&D between 2003 and 

2006. In 2006, their R&D expenditures totaled $77 million, one percent of all fabrication R&D 

spending. 

As a percent of net sales, R&D investment reported by the small-size fabrication companies is 

noticeably higher than that for medium- and large-size companies (see Figure XIII-7). In 2003, 

small-size fabrication companies spent 57 percent of net sales on R&D, compared to 21 percent 

by medium-size and 17 percent by large-size companies. By 2006, fabrication R&D spending by 

small-size companies diminished to 34 percent of net sales compared to an 18 percent decrease 

by medium-size fabrication companies and a 17 percent decrease by large-size companies. 
142

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-7: Fabrication R&D Spending as a 

Percent of Net Sales - By Company Size

17% 16% 15% 17%

21% 18% 18% 18%

57%

44%

39%

34%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Large

Medium

Small

Percent of Net Sales

R&D expenditures for fabless firms followed similar patterns to those of fabrication firms. In 

terms of expenditures, the 10 large-size fabless firms (net sales over $350 million) accounted for 

the largest percentage of R&D spending. They allocated a total of $14.2 billion between 2003 

and 2006 (see Figure XIII-8). In 2006, their spending reached $4.5 billion, 79 percent of total 

fabless R&D spending. 
143

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-8: Fabless R&D Spending

- By Company Size

$2.8 $3.1

$3.7

$4.5

$0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7

$0.2 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3

$-

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Large Medium Small

Medium-size fabless companies (net sales between $25 million and $350 million) accounted for 

the second-largest percentage of R&D spending. They allocated $2.9 billion to R&D between 

2003 and 2006. In 2006, their R&D expenditures reached $733 million, 12.7 percent of all 

design R&D spending. 

Small-size fabless firms (net sales below $25 million) accounted for the smallest percentage of 

industry R&D spending. They allocated $1 billion to R&D over the 2003-2006 period. In 2006, 

their R&D expenditures reached $335 million, 5.8 percent of all design R&D spending. 

R&D spending patterns for fabless companies are reversed when examined as a percent of net 

sales (see Figure XIII-9). Small-size fabless companies have a notably higher ratio of R&D 

spending as a percent of net sales, starting at a high of 193 percent in 2003. That figure receded 

in the following three years, but still stood at 92 percent in 2006. Twenty-four survey 

respondents reported R&D spending that exceeded net sales. These companies posted just under 

$32 million in net sales in 2006, yet allocated over $182 million to R&D - 570 percent of net 

sales. 
144

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-9: Fabless R&D Spending as a 

Percent of Net Sales - By Company Size

20% 17% 18% 18%

39% 34% 28% 25%

193%

187%

167%

92%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

125%

150%

175%

200%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Large

Medium

Small

Percent of Net Sales

R&D spending as a percent of net sales decreased over the survey period for both medium-size 

and large-size fabless companies. Average company R&D investment by medium-size fabless 

companies as a percent of net sales declined from 39 percent in 2003 to 25 percent in 2006. 

Large-size fabless companies also experienced a decline, although to a lesser extent, as R&D 

spending as a percent of net sales fell from 20 percent in 2003 to 18 percent in 2006. 

R&D EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION

Survey participants provided a detailed breakout of R&D spending for the four-year period by 

the following categories: basic research, applied research, process development, and product 

development.66 

Fabrication and fabless companies allocated almost half of their R&D investments from 2003 to 

2006 to product development (see figure XIII-10). For the four-year period, R&D spending 

totaled $68 billion, $30 billion of which was dedicated to product development. 

 

66 For definitions of these terms, see Appendix C.
145

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-10: Total R&D Spending by Function

$3.9 $4.1

$2.7 $3.1

$1.7 $2.0 $2.3 $2.8

$3.5 $3.9 $3.7 $4.3

$6 $7

$9

$10

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Basic Research Applied Research Process Development Product Development

For 2006, overall fabrication and fabless company R&D expenditures by category were: 

• Basic research – $3 billion (15 percent); 

• Applied research – $2.8 billion (14 percent); 

• Process development – $4.3 billion (22 percent); 

• Product development – $9.7 billion (49 percent).67

In 2006, fabrication companies dedicated $6.6 billion - 49 percent of total R&D expenditures - to 

product development (see Figure XIII-11). Over the four-year period, product development 

funding rose 77 percent. The 2006 figures for the other functions were: process development, 

$3.9 billion; basic research, $3 billion; and applied research, $615 million. 

 

67 Percentages are based on total fabrication and fabless company R&D expenditures. 
146

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-11: Fabrication R&D Spending by Function

$3.8 $4.0

$2.7 $3.0

$0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6

$3.1 $3.5 $3.2

$3.9 $4 $4

$6

$7

$-

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year 

$ Billions

Basic Research Applied Research Process Development Product Development

For the top five fabrication companies, expenditures on the various functions were fairly evenly 

distributed: product development, $3.9 billion (36 percent); process development, $3.4 billion 

(32 percent); and basic research, $3 billion (27 percent) (see Figure XIII-12). The exception to 

this was applied research, which received $514 million (almost five percent) of fabricator R&D 

funding. Over the period, however, the focus of spending shifted from basic research to product 

development. In 2003, the top five fabricators allocated 45 percent of expenditures to basic 

research and 19 percent to product development. These five companies changed tack in 2006, 

allotting 27 percent to basic research and 32 percent to product development. 
147

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-12: R&D Spending by Function 

– Top 5 Companies

$3.8 $4.0

$2.6

$3.0

$0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5

$2.7

$3.2

$2.9

$3.4

$2 $2

$4 $4

$-

$1

$1

$2

$2

$3

$3

$4

$4

$5

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Basic Research Applied Research Process Development Product Development

The focus of spending shifts when the top five fabrication companies are excluded from the 

break-out of R&D expenditures by function (see Figure XIII-13). Of the $3.3 billion spent by 

the remaining fabrication companies on R&D in 2006, $2.7 billion, or 79 percent, was spent on 

product development. These fabrication companies spent $67 million, or 2 percent of their total 

R&D expenditures, on basic research. This is a sharp contrast to the 21 percent of R&D funds 

allocated to basic research when R&D priorities of the top five fabrication companies are 

considered. 
148

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-13: R&D Spending by Function 

– Excluding the Top 5 Companies

$0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1

$0.3 $0.3 $0.3

$0.5

$2.1 $2.2 $2.2

$2.7

$-

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Basic Research Applied Research Process Development Product Development

In contrast to fabrication companies, fabless companies dedicated a larger portion of funds to 

applied research. In 2006, fabless companies spent $2.2 billion, or 38 percent of their total R&D 

expenditures on applied research, as compared to the eight percent spent by fabrication 

companies (see Figure XIII-14). 
149

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-14: Fabless R&D Spending by Function

$0.1 $0.1

$1.2

$1.4

$1.8

$2.2

$0.5 $0.4 $0.5 $0.4

$2.1 $2.2

$2.4

$3.2

$0.1 $0.1 

$-

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Basic Research Applied Research Process Development Product Development

Much like their fabrication counterparts, however, fabless companies also invested aggressively 

in product development. In 2006, fabless companies allocated $3.1 billion (55 percent) to this 

function – a nearly 50 percent increase from 2003. Process development and basic research 

received lower levels of funding in 2006: $376 million and $58 million, respectively. 

SOURCES OF R&D FUNDING

IC fabrication and design companies reported sources of R&D funding derived from five 

separate categories for the 2003-2006 period: parent company/internal sources, U.S. private 

entity, foreign investors, federal government, and state and local government. Ninety-eight 

percent of R&D funds are attributable to parent companies/internal sources. 

The sources of R&D funding in 2006 for all companies break down as follows: 

• Parent company ($17.6 billion, 95 percent) 

• U.S. private entity ($425 million, 2.3 percent) 

• Foreign investors ($358 million, 1.9 percent) 

• Federal government ($63 million, 0.36 percent) 

• Local government ($78 million, 0.44 percent) 
150

Internal R&D funding at fabrication companies rose 25 percent from $10 billion in 2003 to $12.4 

billion in 2006 (see Figure XII-15). Ten large-size companies obtained nearly $11 billion (88 

percent) of this funding from internal funding. In comparison, medium-size fabrication 

companies secured only $1.5 billion (12 percent) of R&D funds from internal sources, while 

small-size fabrication companies attributed just $28.3 million (or less than one percent) to 

internal funding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-15: Fabrication R&D Internal Funding

$8.6

$9.3 $9.6

$10.9

$1.3 $1.3 $1.3 $1.5

$0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Large Medium Small

Fabless companies also showed growth in internal R&D funding, reporting a 61 percent gain 

from $3.2 billion in 2003 to $5.2 billion in 2006 (see Figure XIII-16). As with the large-size IC 

fabrication companies, most of the internal R&D funding of fabless companies can be attributed 

to 10 large-size companies, which accounted for $4.3 billion, or 83 percent of funding, in 2006. 
151

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-16: Fabless R&D Internal Funding

$2.5

$2.8

$3.5

$4.3

$0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7

$0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1

$0

$1

$1

$2

$2

$3

$3

$4

$4

$5

$5

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Large Medium Small

Internal funding of R&D was sharply lower for the medium-size fabless companies at roughly 

$669 million in 2006 (13 percent). The small-size fabless companies reported internal R&D 

funding of $232 million in 2006 (4 percent). 

Small-size fabless companies stand out relative to medium- and large-size counterparts in the 

proportion of U.S. private entity funding relative to other sources (see Figure XIII-17). In 2006, 

U.S. private entity funding for small-size fabless companies totaled $199.2 million, 43 percent of 

their total R&D funding. In comparison, medium-size fabless companies reported just $21.6 

million in U.S. private entity R&D funding, three percent of their R&D funding. Large-size 

companies received no funds from U.S. private entities. 
152

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-17: Sources of R&D Funds – Small Fabless Firms

$155

$232

$150

$227

$16 $23 $13 $24

$1 $6

$111

$185

$199

$143

$10

$-

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Millions

Parent Company (Internal) U.S. Private Entity

Foreign Investors Federal Government

R&D EMPLOYMENT

R&D-related employment for fabrication and fabless firms over the 2003-2006 period mirrored 

the growth in R&D expenditures (see Figure XIII-18). Survey participants indicated total R&D 

employment rose 14 percent, from just over 83,000 in 2003 to 95,000 in 2006.68

 

68 Figures based on responses from 107 companies – 73 designers and 34 fabricators. 
153

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-18: R&D Employment

60,248 63,452 67,807 67,403

27,657 23,649 25,379 23,241

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

# of Staff

Fabrication Companies Fabless Companies

Fabrication companies are the largest R&D employers in the industry, accounting for over 70 

percent of total R&D employment in 2006. Overall, R&D employment for IC fabrication 

companies grew 12 percent during the 2003-2006 period, from approximately 60,000 to more 

than 67,000 (see Figure XIII-18). 

A substantial portion of R&D employment in 2006 - nearly 51,000, or 75 percent - was 

concentrated in the top five IC fabrication companies. The remaining large-size companies 

employ another 10 percent of R&D personnel, medium-size companies 14 percent, and smallsize companies accounted for only one percent (see Figure XIII-19). 
154

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-19: Fabrication R&D Employment

– By Company Size

57,430 56,994

52,637 49,920

10,199 9,722 9,736 9,766

562 616 655 673

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Large

Medium

Small

# of Staff

As with fabrication companies, R&D employment for fabless companies also grew from 2003 to 

2006. Overall, R&D employment for this industry segment rose 19 percent from approximately 

23,000 to more than 27,000 (see Figure XIII-18). 

The vast majority of fabless R&D staff is employed by large-size companies. In 2006, these 

companies employed 79 percent of R&D staff (see Figure XIII-20). Medium- and small-size 

fabless companies employed 15 percent and six percent, respectively. Small-size fabless 

companies experienced the most growth, expanding their employment by approximately 83 

percent during the 2003-2006 period. 
155

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-20: Fabless R&D Employment

– By Company Size

21,753

19,985

18,335 18,439

4,003 3,864 4,078 3,906

1,826 1,530 1,000 1,207

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Large

Medium

Small

# of Staff

TOP COUNTRIES FOR R&D EXPENDITURES

In addition to conducting R&D in the United States, fabrication and fabless companies rely on 

research organizations in other countries to perform this work. OTE asked companies to identify 

the top five countries, based on total expenditures, where they fund R&D projects. Thirty 

countries were identified for 2006. 

The United States was cited as the prime location for IC fabrication and fabless R&D spending. 

Some $15.7 billion in R&D activities in 2006 were conducted in the U.S., roughly 84 percent of 

total R&D expenditures (see Figure XIII-21). This domestic investment expanded by more than 

$3 billion during the 2003-2006 period, maintaining an average annual growth rate of nine 

percent. 
156

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-21: Total R&D Expenditures

$12.0 $13.1 $14.1

$15.7

$1.8 $2.1 $2.4 $3.1

$-

$3

$6

$9

$12

$15

$18

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

U.S. Non-U.S.

Non-U.S. countries were recipients of a little more than $3 billion, or 19 percent of total R&D 

investment. While significantly lower than domestic expenditures, non-U.S. R&D investment 

grew at an average annual rate of nearly 19 percent over the 2003-2006 period. 

In 2006, non-U.S. expenditures were concentrated in five countries: Israel ($728 million); India 

($464 million); Germany ($386 million); France ($270 million); and Malaysia ($190 million).69 

Among the five, investment into India exhibited the most growth, as companies increased 

expenditures there annually at an average rate of approximately 47 percent (see Figure XIII-22). 

 

69 Others: Australia, Hong Kong, Thailand, United Kingdom, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, 

Czech Republic, Denmark, Romania, Norway, Russia, Turkey, Latvia, Poland, Spain, and Egypt. 
157

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-22: Top Countries for Non-U.S. R&D 

Investment - 2006

Ireland

5%

Others

18%

Germany

13%

India

15%

France

9%

Malaysia

6%

Canada

5%

Israel

24%

Japan

5%

Fabrication companies disclosed making R&D investments of $2.19 billion in 2006 in numerous 

countries, 70 percent of all non-U.S. R&D spending by fabrication and fabless companies. The 

five leading countries receiving R&D investments from U.S. fabrication companies were Israel, 

India, France, Germany, and Malaysia. 

Fabless companies reported $880 million in R&D investments in 2006, 30 percent of all nonU.S. R&D investments. The five primary recipient countries were Germany, Canada, India, 

Israel, and the United Kingdom. 

When segmented by region, the majority of R&D investment is directed to North America, given 

the large sums of R&D funds spent in the United States (see Figure XIII-23). Total R&D 

funding for the region in 2006 nearly exceeded $15 billion, or 85 percent of total R&D 

expenditure. 70

 

70 North America: United States and Canada; East Asia: India, Malaysia, Japan, China, Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, 

Australia, Hong Kong, and Thailand; Europe: Germany, France, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Belgium, 

Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Czech Republic, Denmark, Romania, Norway, Russia, Turkey, Latvia, 

and Spain; Middle East: Israel and Egypt. 
158

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIII-23: R&D Expenditure by 

Region – 2006

North America: 

$15.8 Billion 

(85%)

East Asia: 

$1.1 Billion 

(6%)

Europe: $891 Million (5%)

Middle East: 

$729 Million 

(4%)

Fabrication and fabless companies reported that East Asia, led by India and Malaysia, received 

the second largest amount at $1.1 billion, or almost six percent of total R&D spending in 2006. 

Although investment in all regions grew during the 2003-2006 period, companies increasingly 

directed R&D funds toward East Asia, resulting in the highest average annual growth rate of 26 

percent. In terms of 2006 R&D investment, East Asia was followed by Europe with $891 

million, or five percent of total expenditures, and the Middle East with $729 million, or four 

percent. 
159

XIV. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

Investment levels of integrated circuit (IC) fabrication and fabless companies in equipment, 

modernization, and new facilities provide insights with respect to their competitiveness, economic 

health, and long-term performance. Information on fabrication and fabless company capital 

expenditures in the United States and in non-U.S. locations was collected and analyzed by OTE for 

2003-2006. 

Total capital spending by fabrication and fabless companies operating in the United States rose 

from $8.3 billion in 2003 to $14.7 billion in 2006 – a 76 percent increase. The vast majority of 

these capital outlays, 71 percent, supported business activity occurring in the United States. 71 In 

2006, IC fabrication and fabless companies made $10.4 billion in capital expenditures in the United 

States and another $4.3 billion in non-U.S. locations (see Figure XIV-1). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-1: Total Capital Expenditures

$5.5

$7.2

$8.0

$10.4

$2.8 $2.9

$3.7 $4.3

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

U.S. Non-U.S.

 

71 This figure is from 2006 and is based on 132 company responses. 
160

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES

Capital spending by fabrication companies increased steadily for the 2003-2006 period, rising 75 

percent from $7.5 billion to just over $13 billion. Outlays by fabricators in 2006 constituted 89 

percent of all capital expenditures by fabrication and fabless companies. 

Fabricators’ capital spending also expanded as a percent of net sales during the 2003-2006 period, 

climbing from 12 percent in 2003 to 16 percent in 2006. Roughly 70 percent ($9.2 billion) of this 

spending in 2006 went to improve capabilities in U.S. facilities. The balance, $3.9 billion, was used 

in capital investment in non-U.S. locations (see Figure XIV-2).72

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-2: Fabrication Companies’ 

Capital Expenditures

$4.8

$6.3 $6.7

$9.2

$2.7 $2.8 $3.4 $3.9

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

U.S. Non-U.S.

Most of the capital spending reported by survey participants is attributable to large-size fabricators 

(see Figure XIV-3). These companies expended $12.3 billion of the $13 billion of total capital 

expenditures reported. The outlays of the top five large-size fabricators accounted for 87 percent of 

capital expenditures in 2006 ($11.3 billion), 69 percent of which ($7.8 billion) went to enhancing 

capabilities in the United States. 

 

72 This figure is based on 37 IC fabrication company responses. 
161

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-3: Fabrication Companies’ 

Capital Expenditures

$6.9

$8.2

$9.4

$12.3

$0.6 $0.8 $0.7 $0.7

$0.01 $0.04 $0.02 $0.05

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Large Medium Small

Capital expenditures for medium-size fabricators were uneven over the 2003-period. Their outlays 

peaked at $808 million in 2004 after rising from $594 million a year earlier.73 Investment declined 

to $684 million in 2005 before rebounding to $723 million in 2006. Capital outlays in 2006 by 

medium-size companies represented just 5.5 percent of total capital investment by fabrication 

companies. Seventy-two percent of medium-size companies’ 2006 capital expenditures, more than 

$517 million, went to enhancing domestic capability. 

Capital investment by small-size fabrication companies advanced significantly in the 2003-2006 

period, climbing from $10.3 million to $47 million. This spending represented less than one 

percent of total capital investment by fabrication companies. All of this investment went to improve 

company capabilities in the United States. 

Capital expenditures by large-size companies as a percent of net sales were less than that for 

medium- and small-size companies. In 2006, large-size companies allocated 10 percent of net sales 

to capital expenditures compared to 17 percent for medium-size companies, and 21 percent for 

small-size companies (see Figure XIV-4). 

 

73 Medium-size companies totaled 18. 
162

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-4: Fabrication Companies’ Capital 

Expenditures - By Company Size

12% 13% 13% 17%

11% 11%

10%

30%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Large

Medium

Small

Percent of Net Sales

ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES

OTE survey participants were asked to specify capital investments for expansion of existing 

production lines, new products, cost reduction, and health and safety. In 2006, fabrication 

companies allocated 64 percent of capital expenditures to the expansion and improvement of 

existing production lines. Overall investment in this function was just over $4 billion in 2003, a 

figure that more than doubled to nearly $8.4 billion in 2006 (see Figure XIV-5). 
163

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-5: Fabrication Companies’ 

Allocation of Capital Expenditures

$4.1

$4.7

$5.9

$8.4

$2.2 $2.2 $2.4 $2.6

$0.9

$1.7 $1.5 $1.6

$0.3 $0.4 $0.5 $0.4

$0.04 $0.04 $0.03 $0.05 $-

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Expansion New Products Other Cost Reduction Health and Safety

Spending on other functions by fabrication companies was more diffuse in 2006: 

• New Products - $2.6 billion (19.6 percent) 

• Other - $1.6 billion (12 percent) 

• Cost Reduction - $506 million (4 percent) 

• Health and Safety - $52 million (0.4 percent) 

Of the $12.3 billion spent in 2006 on capital expenditures by large-size fabrication companies, $8 

billion was used to expand production capabilities (see Figure XIV-6). Sixty-four percent of the $8 

billion ($5.15 billion) went to enhancing capability in the United States, while the remaining $2.85 

billion was allocated to non-U.S. locations. 
164

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-6: Fabrication Companies’ Capital 

Expenditures - by Category and Size (2006)

$8.0

$2.5

$1.5

$0.34 $0.3 $0.03 $0.08 $0.01 $0.14 $0.17 $0.05

$-

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

Expansion New Products Other Cost Reduction Health & Safety

Categories

$ Billions

Large Medium Small

Expansion of production capability was also a priority for medium-size fabricators, who spent $723 

million on capital expenditures in 2006. That year, the companies devoted $336 million, or 46 

percent of total capital expenditures, to this task. Two-thirds of these funds ($228.7 million) were 

allocated to enhancing production capability in the United States and the remaining third ($107.3 

million) went toward non-U.S. capability. 

Small-size companies also focused largely on the expansion of production capability. Of the $47 

million these companies spent on capital expenditures in 2006, 64 percent ($32.6 million) was spent 

on production expansion, all of it for activity taking place within the United States. 

New product development was the second largest area of capital expenditure for large-size 

companies. Of the $12.3 billion spent by these companies in 2006, 20 percent ($2.48 billion) went 

to bolster new product development. Ninety-six percent of these funds were allocated to U.S. 

operations. 

Medium-size companies differed in their remaining priorities in 2006. They allocated 11 percent of 

total capital expenditures ($77.5 million) to new product development, of which $76 million (96 
165

percent) went to U.S. operations. In the case of small-size fabricators, new product development 

was the second investment priority. These companies dedicated 28 percent of total 2006 capital 

expenditures ($13 million) to product development. 

Cost reduction is a constant challenge for all IC fabricators in a world where continuing 

improvement is necessary for remaining competitive. Large-size companies allocated just three 

percent of capital expenditures ($339 million) for cost reduction activities in 2006, and 87 percent 

of those funds went to activities in the United States. In sharp contrast, medium-size companies 

expended $166 million for this activity in 2006, 23 percent of their total capital spending. Smallsize fabricators spent $1 million on cost reduction activities in 2006, just two percent of their total 

capital expenditures. 

Twelve percent of all fabrication company capital expenditures in 2006 ($1.6 billion) went toward 

other programs in 2006, including activities such as general administration or building maintenance. 

Fifty-one percent of this spending was for activity in the United States, with the balance going to 

non-U.S. locations. Of the $1.6 billion, 91 percent of these expenditures were made by large-size 

companies, while medium-size fabricators accounted for nearly nine percent. 

NON-U.S. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES

Fabricators allocated a growing amount of their capital investment to non-U.S. locations, raising 

spending from $2.67 billion in 2003 to $3.92 billion in 2006. However, as a percent of total capital 

expenditures, the offshore portion of capital spending dropped from 36 percent in 2003 to 30 

percent in 2006. 

A breakout shows Asia was the prime destination for non-U.S. capital investment, garnering 14 

percent of the $3.4 billion (see Figure XIV-7).74 Capital spending there reached $1.8 billion in 

2006, an increase of 213 percent from 2003’s investment level of $576 million. The countries 

attracting the most investment in 2006 were Singapore ($493 million), Malaysia ($348 million), the 

 

74Figures based on responses to Question 10b of survey questionnaire, which asked respondents to identify the top five 

destinations of capital expenditures. There could be additional capital expenditures that are not captured by this data. 
166

Philippines ($274 million), Japan ($223 million), China ($189 million), and Thailand ($123 

million). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-7: Non-U.S. Capital Investment by 

Fabrication Companies – 2003, 2006

Philippines

5%

Italy

7%

Ireland

55%

Japan

9%

France

8%

Singapore

5%

Others

11%

China

6%

Japan

7%

France India 6%

5%

Others

9%

Philippines

8%

Malaysia

10%

Singapore

14%

Israel

19%

Ireland

16%

2003 2006

Europe attracted $923 million of capital investment from IC fabricators in the United States in 

2006, seven percent of non-U.S. capital investment. Capital spending in Europe by surveyed IC 

companies was cyclical over the reporting period, starting at $1.5 billion in 2003 and falling to $961 

million in 2004 before rising to $1.69 billion in 2005. Ireland garnered the most in capital funds in 

2006 at $528 million, followed by France ($208 million), Italy ($70.2 million), Germany ($54.7 

million), and Belgium ($24 million). 

Out of the 21 countries identified by surveyed IC fabrication companies as recipients of their capital 

spending, Israel attracted $628 million, or 19 percent of total non-U.S. fabrication capital 

expenditures in 2006. In North America, fabrication investment in Canada jumped from $7 million 

in 2003 to $19 million in 2006, an increase of 171 percent. 

For the four-year period, capital expenditures increased for all geographic areas except Europe, 

which experienced a 45 percent decline, from roughly $1.7 billion in 2003 to $923 million in 2006 
167

(see Figure XIV-8). Fabricators increased the amount of capital expenditures in Asia from eight 

percent in 2003 to 14 percent in 2006, raising investment in the region by over $1.2 billion during 

the period. However, North America, specifically the United States, remained the prime recipient 

of fabrication capital spending, capturing 74 percent of capital expenditures in 2006. In fact, 

fabricators nearly doubled capital investments in North America during the four-year stretch, raising 

spending from $5 billion in 2003 to $9.8 billion in 2006. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-8: Capital Investment by Fabrication 

Companies by Region – 2003, 2006

North 

America

69%

Asia

7.9%

Europe

22.9%

Middle 

East

0.2%

North 

America

74%

Middle 

East

5%

Europe

7%

Asia

14%

2003 2006

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES

The capital investment requirements of fabless companies are significantly less than those of IC 

fabrication companies. Data collected from 75 fabless companies for the 2003-2006 period shows 

capital spending as a percent of net sales averaged 5.5 percent. In contrast, IC fabrication 

companies’ capital expenditures averaged 13.5 percent of net sales over the same period (see Figure 

XIV-9). 
168

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

12.3% 12.7% 13.0%

16.0%

5.2%

6.5%

5.1% 5.5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Fabrication Companies Fabless Companies

Percent of Net Sales

Figure XIV-9: Capital Expenditures as a 

Percent of Net Sales

Although fabless company spending as a percent of net sales showed little change over four years, 

rising from five percent to 5.5 percent, actual expenditures increased dramatically from $817 

million in 2003 to $1.57 billion in 2006. Figure XIV-10 shows this growth broken out by small-, 

medium- and large-size fabless firms. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-10: Fabless Companies’ Capital 

Expenditures – By Company Size

$0.7

$0.9

$1.3 $1.3

$0.07 $0.08 $0.10 $0.09 $0.05 $0.09 $0.12 $0.13

$-

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1.0

$1.2

$1.4

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

Large Medium Small
169

Large-size fabless companies accounted for the majority of reported capital expenditures. 

Collectively, these companies allocated $1.34 billion in 2006 to capital spending, representing 86 

percent of design-related capital expenditures. 

Capital outlays by medium- and small-size fabless companies were substantially lower than those of 

large-size companies. In 2006, medium-size fabless companies reported capital expenditures of 

$94.6 million, an average of three percent of net sales (see Figure XIV-11). For the four-year 

reporting period, capital spending was low, averaging 3.5 percent. 

Small-size companies in 2006 reported capital expenditures of $129.7 million, 27 percent of net 

sales. Capital expenditure figures for small-size companies declined from a peak of 62 percent in 

2003 to 55 percent in 2005, dropping further to 27 percent in 2006. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-11: Fabless Companies’ Capital Expenditures 

as a Percent of Net Sales – By Company Size

5% 5% 6% 5%

3% 4% 4% 3%

27%

55%

62% 61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2003 2004 2005 2006

Large

Medium

Small

Percent of Net Sales

ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES

Fabless companies reported capital spending practices for the expansion of existing product lines, 

new products, cost reduction, health and safety needs, and other activities. 
170

The expansion of existing design production capability was a top priority for fabless companies, 

which increased spending for this purpose from $324 million in 2003 to $627 million in 2006 (see 

Figure XIV-12). Virtually all of this investment, 96 percent, was made by large-size companies for 

their U.S. operations. At the same time, capital spending in non-U.S. locations by fabless firms 

increased significantly, climbing from $4.2 million to $221 million. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-12: Fabless Companies’ 

Allocation of Capital Expenditures

$413

$627

$525

$324

$246

$398

$698

$531

$218 $220

$264

$367

$29 $24 $43 $20

$0.10 $0.03 $-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Millions

Expansion New Products Other Cost Reduction Health and Safety

Of nearly equal importance to fabless firms is capital investment for new product development, 

which increased 116 percent between 2003 and 2006. In 2006, fabless companies allocated $531 

million for new product development. Of the total, $475 million was expended in the United States. 

Capital investment in non-U.S. locations for new product development increased steadily over the 

four-year period, rising from $30 million in 2003 to $56 million in 2006. Seventy-four percent of 

the investment for new product development was attributable to large-size companies (see Figure 

XIV-13). 
171

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-13: Fabless Companies’ Capital 

Expenditures - by Category and Size (2006)

$601

$392

$336

$14 $15 $29 $6 $12 $26 $26

$109

$2

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

Expansion New Products Other Cost

Reduction

Health &

Safety

Categories

$ Millions

Large Medium Small

Expenditures for cost reduction accounted for $43 million, just three percent of overall fabless 

company capital expenditures in 2006. Spending on cost reduction, while small in overall numbers, 

rose 49 percent in the 2003-2006 time span. Medium-size companies accounted for 61 percent of 

all fabless company allocations for cost reduction. Large-size companies accounted for 34 percent 

of fabless company spending used on cost reduction, while small-size companies allocated five 

percent for this purpose. 

Fabless companies provided significant funds to capital investment in other programs, which 

included funding for items such as information technology or laboratories. This spending totaled 

$367 million in 2006, or about 23 percent of capital expenditures by fabless companies. To this 

end, large-size companies spent $336 million, medium-size companies allocated $26 million for this 

activity, while small-size companies spent slightly under $6 million. Capital expenditures for health 

and safety were almost non-existent. 
172

NON-U.S. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES

Fabless firms identified 23 countries as recipients of capital investment funding. OTE survey 

responses highlight a large increase in non-U.S. capital expenditures by fabless companies. These 

expenditures rose from $98 million in 2003 to $417 million in 2006, 326 percent during the 2003-

2006 period and by 90 percent between 2005 and 2006 (see Figure XIV-14). 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-14: Fabless Companies’ Capital 

Expenditures

$0.7

$0.9

$1.3

$1.2

$0.1 $0.2 $0.2

$0.4

$-

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1.0

$1.2

$1.4

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

$ Billions

U.S. Non-U.S.

Capital expenditures by fabless companies in 2006 were distributed in several regions: 

• Asia - $310.8 million 

• Middle East - $69.6 million 

• Europe - $25.9 million 

Not only does Asia dominate in attracting capital investment funds from U.S. IC fabless companies, 

spending there more than doubled from $76.5 million in 2003 to $310.8 million in 2006. Countries 

seeing some of the highest capital spending in 2006 for fabless activity include: Japan ($123 

million); Thailand ($96 million); India ($31 million); China ($26 million); Singapore ($16 million); 

Malaysia ($11 million); Korea ($4 million); and Taiwan ($3 million) (see Figure XIV-15). 
173

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-15: Non-U.S. Capital Investment by 

Fabless Companies – 2003, 2006

UK

8%

Singapore

54%

Thailand

15%

Canada

10%

Others

13%

Thailand

23%

Japan

29%

Israel

17%

India

7%

China 

6%

Others

18%

2003 2006

The ascendance of Japan as a destination for capital expenditures from U.S. fabless companies is 

apparent. Spending there increased from $1.2 million in 2003 to $123 million in 2006. Fabless 

company capital spending in Thailand also surged, climbing from $15 million in 2003 to $96 

million to 2006. At the same time, survey participants reported decreased capital spending in 

Singapore, where inflows dropped from $53 million in 2003 to $16 million in 2006. 

In the Middle East, Israel is benefiting from rising capital expenditures. Spending there by fabless 

companies soared from $2.1 million in 2003 to $69.6 million in 2006, a jump of over 3,000 percent. 

Most of this increase occurred in 2006, when capital spending rose to $66.9 million from $2.7 

million in 2005. 

Europe also received significant capital spending from fabless companies, with survey participants 

reporting $26 million in expenditures for 2006. Capital expenditures by fabless companies in 

Europe rose in the 2003-2006 period, increasing 169 percent from $9.6 million. Nearly all of this 

2006 capital spending, 71 percent, occurred in two countries: the United Kingdom at $11.9 million 

and Germany at $6.6 million. The remainder was distributed in small sums across 10 other 

European countries. 
174

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XIV-16: Capital Investment by Fabless 

Companies by Region – 2003, 2006

North 

America

88.8%

Asia

9.7%

Europe

1.2%

Middle 

East

0.3%

North 

America

87%

Middle 

East

5%

Europe

2%

Asia

6%

2003 2006
175

APPENDIX A: SURVEY AUTHORITY

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

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

(50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2155) (DPA) and related Executive Order 12656. These authorities enable 

BIS/OTE to conduct mandatory surveys, study defense-related industries and technologies, and 

monitor economic and trade issues affecting the U.S. defense industrial base. OTE has performed 

assessments on a broad range of U.S. industrial and technology sectors including imaging and 

sensors, space systems, cartridge and propellant actuated devices, munitions power sources and the 

U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft.75 Almost all OTE assessments are conducted with the participation of 

the Armed Services, Congress and/or industry associations. 

 

75 See the U.S. DOC/BIS/OTE web site for a full listing of published reports: 

http://www.bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms/. 
176

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY

Amorphous Silicon: A semiconductor material that has no definite or regular crystal structure and is used 

to make the thin-film transistors (TFTs). 

Antimonides: A class of compound semiconductor materials that have higher peak carrier velocities than 

silicon, gallium arsenide and indium phosphate materials. These materials are attractive for producing high 

speed transistors and can be used in low-voltage systems. 

Applied Research: Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the 

means by which a recognized and specific need may be met. This activity includes work leading to the 

production of useful materials, devices and systems or methods, including design development and 

improvement of prototypes and new processes. 

Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC): A circuit designed to suit a customer’s particular 

requirement, as opposed to memory devices or microprocessors, which are general-purpose 

semiconductors. 

Back-End: The series of process steps at the back-end of integrated circuit manufacturing from contact 

through completion of the wafer, prior to electrical test. 

Basic Research: Systematic, scientific study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the 

fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts. 

Bulk Silicon: The silicon semiconductor material predominantly employed in the production of integrated 

circuit products manufactured around the world. 

Capital Expenditures: Investments made by a company in buildings, equipment, property, and systems 

where the expense is depreciated. This does not include expenditures for consumable materials, other 

operating expenses and salaries associated with normal business operations. 

Circuit: The connection of multiple electrical elements to accomplish a desired function. 

Coprocessor: Specialized circuitry in a microprocessor that off loads specified tasks and processes them 

more rapidly than in possible in basic microprocessor circuitry. 

 

Custom ASIC: These ASICs differ from standard cell ASICs in that designers have total control of the 

attributes of each transistor forming a logic gate, enabling them to tune the integrated circuit device for 

optimum operation, performance superior to that attained in other types of devices. 

Development: The design, development, simulation, or experimental testing of prototype or experimental 

hardware or systems, to validate technological feasibility or concept of operation, to reduce technological 

risk, or to provide test systems prior to production approval. 

Design: Activity required to implement a product concept in support of the manufacture of the Integrated 

Circuit product at a fabrication facility. 

Die: A single integrated circuit (or chip) cut from the wafer on which it was manufactured. 

Digital: The expression of information in binary code as ones and zeros. 

Digital Design: Design methods employed to create integrated circuit products such as microprocessors 

and memory devices. Digital IC design has three major segments: electronic system level (ESL), register 

transfer level (RTL), and physical design. 

 
177

Digital Signal Processing: Digital circuits designed to address a broad class of problems in signal reception 

and analysis that have traditionally been solved using analog components. DSP is used to enhance, 

analyze, filter, modulate or otherwise manipulate standard analog functions such as images, sounds, radar 

pulses, and other such signals by analyzing and transforming wave-forms (e.g., transmitting data over phone 

lines via modem). 

Display Electronics: Integrated circuit products employed in digital displays used for entertainment and 

information systems. 

Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM): A type of memory component. These active memory cells 

are "Dynamic" and lose their ability to retain information when power to the system is lost. Information stored 

in the memory cells is accessed randomly. Memory is a key component of most electronic products. 

EPROM: An erasable programmable read-only memory chip that allows stored information to be erased by 

exposure to ultraviolet light. 

EEPROM: Electronically-erasable programmable read-only memory. 

EPGA: See One-Time Electronically Programmable Gate Arrays. 

Extra Permanent Memory (XPM): Non-volatile, one-time programmable memory. 

Fabless: A semiconductor company with no company-owned and operated IC fabrication capability in the 

United States, only product design capability. 

Fabrication: The process of manufacturing an integrated circuit. 

Fabrication Facility: A manufacturing plant or production facility that processes semiconductor wafers to 

produce integrated circuit products, or discrete electronic components such as transistors and diodes. 

Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA): A semi-custom integrated circuit chip, a gate array, containing 

cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not connected. The appropriate interconnections are 

made to meet specific requirements of the customer using software to form a custom-designed working 

device. This device can be programmed in the field, outside of a factory setting. 

Flash Memory: Non-volatile solid state memory. It is related to electrically erasable programmable readonly memory (EEPROM) devices. 

Front-End: Integrated circuit wafer processing steps, including thermal processes, implantation, chemical 

vapor deposition (CVD), photolithography, etching, physical vapor deposition (PVD), polishing, process 

diagnostics and control (metrology), and cleaning. 

Foundry: A wafer production and processing plant. Usually used to denote a facility that is available on a 

contract basis for companies that do not have wafer fabrication capability of their own, or that wish to 

supplement their own capabilities. 

Gallium Arsenide: A compound semiconductor material used for making optoelectronic devices and highfrequency ICs. This material has higher electron mobility than silicon, thus having the capability of producing 

higher-speed devices. 

Gallium Nitride: A compound semiconductor material used in the manufacture of integrated circuit 

products. Properties include higher operating temperatures and higher voltages than gallium arsenide. 

Gate Array: Semi-custom chip IC devices containing cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not 

connected. The appropriate interconnections are made to meet specific requirements of the customer using 

software to form a custom-designed working device. 
178

Indium Phosphate: A compound semiconductor material used in the manufacture of integrated circuit 

products. The material provides faster performance in integrated circuit devices. 

Insulator: Material that does not allow an electrical charge to pass through it. 

Integrated Circuit (IC): A miniaturized electronic device containing multiple solid-state circuits that work in 

conjunction to form a complete device with defined functions, and that has been manufactured on the 

surface of a thin substrate of semiconductor material. In these devices many active or passive elements are 

fabricated and connected together on a continuous substrate, as opposed to discrete devices, such as 

transistors, resistors, capacitors and diodes that exist individually. 

Line Width: The width of a metal interconnect in an integrated circuit. 

Lithography: The transfer of a pattern or image from one medium to another, such as to a wafer. 

Magneto-Resistive Electro Mechanical Memory (MRAM): A memory device that stores data using 

magnet charges and at higher density rates than conventional memory. It could replace other types of 

memory devices such as dynamic random access memory and flash memory. 

Mask: A patterned plate or template used to expose selected areas of a wafer layer to light in the process of 

fabricating an integrated circuit. 

Mask Programmable Gate Arrays (MPGA): Generic masks are used to create an array of generic base 

cells laid out in rows. Logic circuits are created by connecting transistors with wires within cells and 

connecting cells with wires. This architecture can reduce development time for IC products, but device 

performance is less efficient than what can be achieved in custom ASICs. 

Memory: The working space used by the computer to hold the program that is currently running, along with 

the data it needs to run programs and process data. The main memory is built from random access memory 

(RAM) chips. The amount of memory available determines the size of programs that can be run, and whether 

more than one program can run at a time. Main memory is temporary and is lost when the computer is 

turned off. It is distinguished from more permanent internal read only memory (ROM) which contains the 

computer's essential programs, and data storage memory devices such as hard drives and compact disks. 

Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems Memory (MEMS): A micro electro-mechanical system for the writing of 

data and reading of stored magnetic data. It has the potential in enable higher data storage because it uses 

mechanical positioning to define a data storage cell rather than microlithography processes. 

Microlithography: A process in semiconductor fabrication that transfers a pattern from a photomask to the 

surface of a substrate. Microlithography involves a combination of substrate preparation, photoresist 

application, soft-baking, exposure, developing, hard-baking and etching. 

Microprocessor: The main processing unit of a computer or information processing device. The device is 

capable of carrying out instructions, performing calculations, and interacting with the components used to 

operate a computer. The microprocessor handles the fetch, decode, and execute steps. 

Mixed Signal Technologies: Integrated circuit devices that combine analog and digital circuitry. 

MMIC Technologies: Monolithic microwave integrated circuits (a.k.a. micro monolithic integrated circuits) 

are often used as amplifiers and filters. The devices operate at microwave frequencies and can employ both 

analog and digital circuitry. 

Nanometer (nm): One billionth of a meter; one millionth of a millimeter (10-9 meter). 

Neutron Hardened: Integrated circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical characteristics 

that can withstand the damaging effects of high-speed neutrons, gamma rays, and electromagnetic pulses 

that accompany a nuclear weapons detonation. 
179

Non-Affiliated Company: For the purposes of this assessment, a company that is not owned or operated 

by a survey respondent. 

Nonvolatile Memory: A storage device whose contents are preserved when its power is off. Storage using 

magnetic disks or tape is normally non-volatile. Some semiconductor memories (ROM, EPROM, Flash 

memory) are non-volatile while other semiconductor memories (static RAM and especially dynamic RAM) are 

normally volatile but can be made into non-volatile storage by permanently connecting a (rechargeable) 

battery. 

One-Time Electronically Programmable Gate Arrays (EPGA): A semi-custom integrated circuit chip, a 

gate array, containing cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not connected. The appropriate 

interconnections are made to meet specific requirements of the customer using software to form a customdesigned working device. This device can be programmed only one time. 

Organic Technologies: Classes of conducting polymers with semiconductor properties and processes that 

can be used to manufacture transistors and integrated circuit devices, including displays. 

Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM): A manufacturer who places his brand on a product and sells it. 

The manufacturer may or may not have designed or manufactured the product himself. 

Phase Change Memory: Non-volatile memory that uses the crystalline and amorphous switching states of 

chalcogenide glass. 

Photomask: A transparent blank covered with a pattern that is transferred to the surface of a substrate 

through photographic methods. 

Polymer Memory: An emerging technology based on plastic materials with semiconducting properties. 

Process Development: The creation of wafer production processes used in manufacturing integrated 

circuit products for a specified technology node. 

Product Development: Conceptualization and development of an integrated circuit product prior to the 

production of IC product for customers. 

RAM (Random Access Memory): Memory available on a computer for storing data and programs currently 

being processed. It is automatically erased when the power is turned off. Information in the RAM that needs 

to be stored for future use must be saved onto a disk or a tape. 

Radiation Hardened: Integrated circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical 

characteristics that demonstrate a capability to resist radiation-induced damage from industrial sources, 

electromagnetic pulses, weapons systems; and/or charged particles in space that can damage circuitry and 

render a device inoperable. 

Radiation Resistant: Integrated circuit products that are able to resist damage from given doses of 

radiation, including single-event effects resistant, radiation tolerant, radiation hardened, and neutron 

hardened devices. 

Radiation Tolerant: Integrated circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical characteristics 

with limited capability to resist radiation induced damage from industrial sources, electromagnetic pulses, 

industrial sources, weapons systems, and charged particles in space that can damage circuitry and render a 

device inoperable. 

Register Transfer Level (RTL) Design: An integrated circuit design step that converts an electronic system 

level (ESL) design into a description that drives the function of digital circuits and interconnections in an 

integrated circuit. 
180

Research and Development: Basic and applied research in the engineering sciences, as well as design 

and development of prototype products and processes. 

 

Semiconductor Materials: Elemental materials such as silicon and germanium (or compounds like gallium 

arsenide) that possess levels of electrical conductivity that are less than a conductor but greater than an 

insulator. 

Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA): SIA is the leading trade association representing the 

integrated circuit industry. SIA represents U.S. IC product manufacturers on trade, technology, 

environmental protection and worker safety and health issues. 

Silicon: The most common element in nature and the material used to create most transistors and 

integrated circuit products. 

Silicon Carbide: A compound semiconductor material used in the manufacture of integrated circuit 

products. Properties include an ability to handle high voltages and higher temperatures. 

Silicon Germanium: A semiconductor alloy material used in the manufacture of integrated circuit products. 

Properties include lower power consumption than bulk silicon, reduced resistance, and higher processing 

speeds. 

Silicon-on-Insulator: A silicon wafer with a thin layer of oxide (SiO2) buried in it. SOI substrates provide 

superior isolation between adjacent devices in an integrated circuit as compared to devices built into bulk 

wafers. 

Silicon-on-Sapphire: Similar to silicon-on-insulator except that sapphire is used as an insulator in place of 

silicon dioxide. Properties include radiation resistance. 

Single-Event Effects Resistant: Resistant to effects caused by a single energetic particle striking an 

Integrated Circuit (IC) device. Performance of the IC device is not compromised to a point where it is 

inoperable or not reliable for executing a mission as a result of latch-up, burnout, or gate rupture. 

Standard Cell ASIC: Devices that employ pre-designed logic cells laid out in rows to implement the design 

for a logic circuit. This approach allows for lower integrated circuit device development costs. These 

products often are larger and can not match the performance of custom ASICs. 

Static Random Access Memory (SRAM): An integrated circuit similar to a DRAM that requires no constant 

refreshing or recharging. It retains stored information as long as power is applied to the computer, hastening 

information-retrieval process time. In contrast to ROM, SRAM is volatile and will lose data when the power is 

switched off. SRAM is typically faster than DRAM but usually costs more per bit because each bit requires 

several transistors. It is used to support speed-critical systems in computers. 

Technology Node: Generally accepted manufacturing benchmarks used by fabricators for making 

integrated circuit products using a given generation of manufacturing technology. Sometimes referred to as a 

“process node” or “process technology,” it represents the smallest circuit feature size that can be drawn on a 

chip with a microlithography tool. Circuit feature dimensions dictate how much circuit can be placed in a 

given area on a microchip. As technology nodes step down to smaller dimensions, circuit density can be 

increased, allowing for the manufacture of more complex devices. 

Transistor: A type of switch that contains no moving parts and uses electricity to turn itself on and off. The 

device controls current flow and serves as the basic element of a computer chip. It consists of three 

terminals: a source, a gate, and a drain. Applying a voltage to the gate controls current flow between the 

source and the drain. 

Trusted Access Program/Trusted Supplier Program: A program implemented by the National Security 

Agency and the Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) to qualify Integrated Circuit design and 
181

manufacturing companies as “trusted” suppliers of Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) products 

required for national security applications. 

United States: The term “United States” includes the fifty states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the 

island of Guam, Trust Territories, and the Virgin Islands. 

Wafer: A thin, flat piece of semiconductor crystal (typically silicon) used in the manufacture of 

microprocessors and integrated circuits. Circuit components are created on the surface of the wafer through 

a series of manufacturing techniques that include layering and etching. 

Wafer Starts Per Week: The number of semiconductor wafers that can be processed by an Integrated 

Circuit on production line(s) in a 7-day period. 

XPM: See Extra Permanent Memory.

Zero Capacitor Random Access Memory (ZRAM): Embedded floating body memory cell technology uses 

a structure based on a single transistor, an approach that allows storage density five times that of static 

random access memory (SRAM) devices. 
182

APPENDIX C: LIST OF SUPPLIERS ACCREDITED BY THE DEFENSE 

MICROELECTRONICS AGENCY (DMEA)76

Supplier Scope of Accreditation Accredited Expires 

Aeroflex Colorado Springs Aggregation; Design; Packaging/Assembly; 

Test 

12/4/2007 12/4/2009 

BAE Systems Information and 

Electronic Systems 

Integration, Inc. 

Design; Packaging/Assembly; Foundry 

Services; Test 

11/5/2008 12/13/2009 

BAE Systems Microwave 

Electronics Center Nashua 

Foundry Services 4/7/2008 4/7/2010 

Endicott Interconnect 

Technologies, Inc 

Packaging/Assembly 9/25/2008 9/25/2010 

Honeywell Aerospace 

Plymouth 

Design; Packaging/Assembly; Foundry 

Services; Test 

10/22/2008 3/13/2010 

Honeywell Federal 

Manufacturing & 

Technologies, LLC/Kansas 

City Plant 

Aggregation; Design; Packaging/Assembly; 

Test 

6/10/2008 6/10/2010 

HRL Laboratories Foundry Services 4/18/2008 4/18/2010 

IBM Systems Technology 

Group 

Mask Data Parsing; Mask Manufacturing; 

Foundry Services 

12/13/2007 12/13/2009 

Intersil Corporation Foundry Services 7/31/2008 7/31/2010 

National Semiconductor 

Corporation 

Foundry Services 12/13/2007 12/13/2009 

National Semiconductor 

Corporation 

Aggregation 4/14/2008 4/14/2010 

Northrop Grumman Electronic 

Systems 

Foundry Services 2/25/2008 2/25/2010 

Northrop Grumman Space 

Technology 

Foundry Services 12/13/2007 12/13/2009 

Pantronix Corporation Packaging/Assembly 12/2/2008 12/2/1210 

Raytheon RF Components Foundry Services 8/28/2008 2/28/2010 

Rockwell Collins, Inc. Design; Packaging/Assembly; Test 1/15/2009 10/20/2010 

Sandia National Laboratories 

Microsystems Science, 

Technology, & Components 

Design 1/7/2009 1/7/2011 

Sarnoff Corporation Foundry Services 10/20/2008 10/20/2010 

Teledyne Microelectronic 

Technologies 

Packaging/Assembly; Test 1/22/2008 1/22/2010 

TriQuint Semiconductor Texas Foundry Services 12/2/2008 12/2/2010 

 

76 For more information on accredited suppliers, please visit http://www.dmea.osd.mil/trustedic.html 
183

APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT COVERAGE – SURVEY INSTRUMENT

The OTE survey instrument was structured to provide a facility-by-facility breakout for all IC 

fabrication and design operations across the United States. A number of large-size IC companies 

filled out multiple OTE surveys to fulfill this facility-level reporting requirement. In preparing the 

final report, OTE staff aggregated the final data submissions to protect business proprietary 

information. The depth and breath of the OTE IC database can be best explained by reviewing the 

specific sections of the survey instrument. 

The OTE survey requested information pertaining to: (1) conventional integrated circuit products, 

which account for the majority of U.S. capabilities, and (2) radiation resistant products, including 

single-event effects resistant, radiation tolerant, radiation hardened, and neutron hardened products 

for commercial, industrial and military applications. 

The OTE survey document consists of nine sections containing questions on a broad range of 

parameters to measure capability for IC product fabrication and design. A summary of the focus of 

each section follows: 

Conventional IC Products - Survey Sections 2a-2e 

To assess capabilities, IC fabrication and design companies were asked to describe their abilities in 

terms of the dimensions, materials, device types, and processing capability by wafer size. 

Technology node capability (nanometers) spanned 15 categories ranging from 10,000 – 6,000 

nanometers down to less than 32 nanometers. These categories were grouped in four technology 

node ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm; 1,000 nm – 250 nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm. 

Wafer processing data covered five wafer sizes: 2- or 3-inch, 4-inch, 6-inch, 8-inch, and 12-inch. 

Information was collected on companies’ capability to design and fabricate conventional IC 

products using 10 material types:77

 

77 For more information on these material types, see Appendix C. 
184

Amorphous Silicon

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Silicon Carbide

Indium Phosphate

Gallium Arsenide

Gallium Nitride

Standard Silicon Materials

Non-Standard Materials

Antimonides

Silicon Sapphire

Silicon Germanium

Silicon on Insulator

Bulk Silicon

Materials Types Included in the Survey

Survey participants also described their ability to design and/or fabricate 14 types of conventional 

IC devices:78

Mixed Signal ASICs Display Electronics

Micromonolithic Integrated Circuits 

(MMIC) Custom ASICs

Standard Cell ASICs Microprocessors/Co-processors

Dynamic Random Access Memory 

(DRAM)

Structured Application Specific 

Integrated Circuits (ASICs)

Static Random Access Memory 

(SRAM)

Mask Programmable Gate Arrays 

(MPGAs)

Nonvolatile Memory One-Time Electronically 

Programmable Gate Arrays (EPGAs)

Digital Signal Processors Field Programmable Gate Arrays 

(FPGAs)

Device Types Included in the Survey

 

78 For more information on these device types, see Appendix C. 
185

Organizations were asked to further describe their nonvolatile memory device fabrication and/or 

design capability. These 10 nonvolatile memory device types included: 

Micro Electro-mechanical Systems 

Memory (MEMS)

Zero Capacitor Random Access 

Memory (ZRAM)

Phase Change Memory Magneto-resistive Random Access 

Memory (MRAM)

One-time Programmable Memory 

(XPM)

Ferro-electric Random Access Memory 

(FeRAM)

Flash Memory Polymer Memory

Electrically Erasable Programmable 

Read-only Memory (EEPROM)

Erasable Programmable Read-only 

Memory (EPROM)

Types of Nonvolatile Memory Included in the Survey

Radiation Resistant IC Products - Survey Sections 3a-3c 

Respondents were asked to provide information on their ability to design and/or fabricate four types 

of radiation resistant IC products: single-event effects resistant, radiation tolerant, radiation 

hardened and neutron hardened. The data collected from these specific categories was further 

segmented by technology node, material type, wafer size, and device type - the same categories 

used in the survey section on conventional capability. 

Manufacturing Utilization - Survey Sections 4a-4c 

This section focused on manufacturing capability in the context of production, facility utilization, 

facility availability, and projections for continued operation in the future. Capability was reported 

by wafer starts per week, circuit technology node, wafer size and material type. These questions 

covered both conventional and radiation-resistant IC products. 

National Security/Trusted Foundry Access Program - Survey Sections 5a-5k 

Companies and organizations were asked to state their interest and capability in 

designing/supplying products for current and future national security end-uses, including how much 

capacity they were willing to devote to national security business. Design and fabrication 

companies were also asked if they were certified or had interest in becoming certified for the 

Department of Defense Trusted Foundry Access Program. 
186

 

Performance and Outsourcing of Production Functions by Fabrication Firms - Survey 

Sections 6a-6l 

The survey requested companies and organizations to identify their current capability to perform 

seven manufacturing steps: mask making, wafer manufacturing (front and back ends), wafer sorting, 

circuit testing, packaging, and final testing. Survey participants specified those manufacturing steps 

that they outsource to domestic service providers and facilities at non-U.S. locations. Companies 

were also asked to identify the manufacturing functions they would continue to carry-out in the 

United States through 2011 and the functions they expect to outsource to domestic and non-U.S. 

locations in the future. 

 

Performance and Outsourcing of Production Functions by Fabless Firms - Survey Sections 

7a-7j 

In the area of IC design, survey participants were asked to describe their current capability to carry 

out seven design steps: digital, analog, RTL (register transfer level) design, synthesis, physical 

layout, functional verification, and test vector generation. Companies were also asked to specify 

those design steps that they outsource to domestic service providers and to facilities at non-U.S. 

locations. Companies were asked to identify the design functions they would continue to carry out 

in the United States through 2011 and the functions they expect to outsource to non-U.S. locations 

in the future. 

Financials - Survey Sections 8a-8f 

Fabrication companies and fabless companies provided data for years 2003-2007 on their net sales. 

OTE used this information to understand the financial profiles of companies participating in these 

distinct segments of the industry. Both fabricators and fabless firms were examined by size in terms 

of sales and their industry position as large-, medium-, or small-size companies. In addition, OTE 

reviewed the financial standing of IC fabrication companies and fabless companies. 

Research & Development: Expenditures, Outsourcing and Employment - Survey Sections 9a9d 

Corporate research and development (R&D) expenditures were broken into four categories: basic 

research, applied research, product development, and process development. Respondents were also 
187

asked about the sources of their funding: parent company/internal, federal government, state and 

local government, U.S. private entities, and foreign investors. R&D employment trends as well as 

offshore transfers of R&D expenditures were also captured at the corporate level. 

Capital Investment: Expenditures and Outsourcing - Survey Sections 10a-10b 

Information on fabrication and fabless company capital expenditures was collected from survey 

participants for the 2003-2007 period. Investment patterns of fabrication companies and fabless 

companies were analyzed separately. In addition to overall investment levels, the data focuses on 

specific aspects of capital investment, including cost reduction, replacement expansion, 

improvement of production capacity, and new product development. Capital investment flows for 

domestic versus international operations also are examined. 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE ASSESSMENT: U.S. INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING CAPABILI

OMB Control Number: 0694-0119; Expiration Date: 12/

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT 

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Technology Evaluation, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Defense, is 

conducting an assessment of the U.S. design and manufacturing infrastructure available for producing Integrated Circuit products re

for meeting U.S. national security needs. The goal of this study is to provide decision makers in the Departments of Defense, Energ

Justice, Homeland Security, and others with (1) detailed information on the health and status of Integrated Circuit design and manufacturing capabilities remaining in the United States; and (2) the outlook for maintaining these activities in the future. The scopthis effort encompasses Integrated Circuit design and production resources, including activities such as mask blank, mask making, semiconductor wafer supply. 

RESPONSE TO THIS SURVEY IS REQUIRED BY LAW 

A response to this survey is required by law (50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 2155). Failure to respond can result in a maximum fine of $10,00

imprisonment of up to one year, or both. Information furnished herewith is deemed confidential and will not be published or discloseexcept in accordance with Section 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2155). Section 70

prohibits the publication or disclosure of this information unless the President determines that its withholding is contrary to the natio

defense. Information will not be shared with any non-government entity, other than in aggregate form. The information will be prote

pursuant to the appropriate exemptions from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), should it be the subject of a F

request. 

Not withstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of informadisplays a currently valid OMB Control Number. 

BURDEN ESTIMATE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENT 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9 hours per response, including the time for reviewi

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collect

information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information to BIS Information Collection Officer, Room 6883, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, and to thof Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB Control No. 0694-0119), Washington, D.C. 20503. 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 

1 DEADLINE: Your office should submit its completed survey on or about November 9, 2007. 2 Please complete each section of the survey. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

i Who Must Respond To This Survey - Please Begin Survey Here Begiii Company/Organization Information 1a-1iii U.S. and Foreign Facility Locations and Customer Segments 1c-1iv Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing Facilities Information 2a-2v Rad Tolerant, Rad Hardened, Neutron Hardened Design & Manufacturing 3a-3vi Manufacturing Capabilities & Production Rates 4a-4vii Interest and Capability to Supply Products For National Security 5a-5viii Performance of Production Functions for Integrated Circuits 6a-6ix Performance of Design Functions for Integrated Circuits 7a-7x Finance (Income Statement and Balance Sheet) 8a-8xi Research and Development and R&D Occupation 9a-9xii Capital Expenditures 10a-xiii Survey Certification 113 Estimates are welcome; however, please indicate such in the corresponding comments boxes if so reported. 4 Please report all financial, production, manufacturing capacity, and similar data on a Calendar Year basis. 5 Questions related to this questionnaire should be directed to: 

Jason Bolton, Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-5936 [e-mail: jbolton@bis.doc.gov] Christopher Nelson, Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-4727 [e-mail: cnelson@bis.doc.gov] Mark Crawford, Senior Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-8239 [e-mail: mcrawfor@bis.doc.gov] Brad Botwin, Program Director, (202) 482-4060 [e-mail: bbotwin@bis.doc.gov] 

BIS/OTE Fax Number: (202) 482-5361 

6 Before returning your completed Excel questionnaire via e-mail, be sure to complete the Certification page. Mr. Brad Botwin, Program Director, Office of Technology Evaluation BIS Room U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page

Table of Contents 

S

WHO MUST RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY 

Select the description that most closely reflects your organization: 

1 An Integrated Circuit product design, product development and manufacturing organization. 2 A fabless Integrated Circuit product design and product development organization - only.3 An Integrated Circuit manufacturing foundry - only. 4 

Did your organization at any time in the last five years have a capability to design/manufacture ICproducts? 

5 If you selected "Yes" to any of questions 1-4 above, please continue completing this survey. 6 If you selected "No" for questions 1-4, please complete "Exemption From Survey" below. 

EXEMPTION FROM SURVEY 

If your organization's operations during the last five years did not involve Integrated Circuit product design and/or manufactu

you may be exempt from completing this survey. Please call one of the contacts listed in General Instructions above to verif

your status. Then complete steps 7-8 below: 

7 Briefly explain the products and/or services provided by your organization in the space below: 8 

Please complete and print out the "Certification" page. Return a signed copy of the "Certification" only after conf

your exemption by speaking with one of our staff. Please transmit the "Certification" to our offices via mail, expre

courier, e-mail, or FAX (202) 482-5361, no later than November 9, 2007. 

Previous Page

Table of Contents 

S
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of ContentsSection 1 Company/Organization Information 

U.S. Executive Offic

1.a Company/Organization Name Street Address Country 

City Phone N

Website Address State FAX Num

D&B Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number 

SIC (3-

Digit) 

Code(s)*

CAGE Code 

NAICS 

(4-Digit) 

Code(s)*

*Primary type of prprovided determine the SIC afollowing (http://wwnaics.htm

Point of Contact Regarding this Survey 

Name(s) Phone Location E-mail Address 
Instructions -- Survey Completion and Submission Method 

OTE already has collected information on the locations of your company’s design and/manufacturing facilities. OTE now needs detthe capabilities of each of those U.S.-based facilities. A company may provide this information in one or two ways: 

Option #1) Instruct each of your design and/or manufacturing facilities to complete the requested information regarding their techncapabilities (Survey Sections 2-4) and have them report that information directly to OTE. If your company chooses this approach, in

should not and may not report Interest and Capability to Supply (Section 5), Performance of Production Functions (Section 6

Design Functions (Section 7), Financial information (Section 8), Research and Development and R&D Occupational informCapital Expenditures (Section 10). Survey Sections 5 - 11 must be completed and submitted as a single consolidated corporate/

[This approach may speed completion of the survey for companies operating multiple facilities.] Option #2) Instruct each of your design and/or manufacturing facilities to report the requested information regarding their technical 

production capabilities (Survey Sections 2-4) to a designated corporate coordinator. The corporate coordinator can submit in a con

filing the technical and production capabilities for each of its facilities along with the requested financial information (Section 8), reseand development and R&D occupational information (Section 9), and Capital Expenditures (Section 10). Note: OTE is sending copies of this survey to every company's U.S. corporate office and to facilities engaged in integrated circuit d

and/or manufacturing work in the United States. Be sure to coordinate with your corporate point of contact and your facilities

Please specify in the box whether your company will use Option #1 or Option #2 : My company/organization is headquartered in: The parent of my company/organization is headquartered in: Parent Company/Organization Name Address City State Country My company/organization is (public/private): My parent company/organization is (public/private): 1.b One or more foreign governments have invested, directly or indirectly in my company/organization - and collectively control five percent or more of stockholder voting shares in my company.If you answered "Yes," please explain (in the space below) the nature of the investment and identify the foreign government(s). 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

Corporate Level Response Only 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2011*

1.c Please state the number of Integrated Circuit fabrication facilities that your company operated* in the United States for the following years:Please state the number of Integrated Circuit fabrication facilities that your company operated outside of the United States for the following years: 

Total 0 0 0 0 0 

*Project the 

Number of 

Facilities that your 

company 

anticipates 

operating in the 

United States in 

2011. 

1.d Instruction: Please specify the industry sectors that your company/facility serves through the provision of design and/or manufacturing services for Integrated Circuit products located in the United States:

(Select "Yes" or "No") 

Aviation systems/Avionics Telecommunications Comments: Automotive Military and Space Consumer electronics Other National Security systems Electronic Data Processing Other [specify in comments]Industrial Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Nex

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN SURVEY 

APPLIED RESEARCH – Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and spe

need may be met. This activity includes work leading to the production of useful materials, devices and systems or methods, including design development and improvement of prototypes and new processes.

BASIC RESEARCH – Systematic, scientific study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena 

observable facts.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES – Investments made by a company in buildings, equipment, property, and systems where the expense is depreciated

does not include expenditures for consumable materials, other operating expenses and salaries associated with normal business operations.

DEVELOPMENT – The design, development, simulation, or experimental testing of prototype or experimental hardware or systems, to validate 

technological feasibility or concept of operation, to reduce technological risk, or to provide test systems prior to production approval.

DESIGN – Design activity required to implement a product concept in support of the manufacture of the Integrated Circuit product at a fabrication INTEGRATED CIRCUIT – Analog or digital devices that incorporate transistors, diodes, capacitors, resistors, and other circuit elements that are integrated on a single substrate (chip), typically silicon.MANUFACTURING – The production of a working Integrated Circuit product in a fabrication facility.NEUTRON HARDENED – Integrated Circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical characteristics that can withstand the damagineffects of high-speed neutrons, gamma rays, and electromagnetic pulses that accompany a nuclear weapons detonation. Most CMOS[1] technolo

are inherently neutron hardened without any specific effort on the part of an ICs designer/manufacturer. For “minority carrier” IC devices that are aby neutron-induced displacement damage, a level of 1X1014 n/cm2 (1MeV equivalent fluence) is the accepted standard.[2]

ORGANIZATION — A company, firm, laboratory, or other entity that owns or controls one or more U.S. establishment capable of designing and/o

manufacturing Integrated Circuit products. A company may be an individual proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, or corporation (including any subsidiary corporation in which more than 50 percent of the outstanding voting stock is owned by a business trust, cooperative, trustee(s) in bankr

or receiver(s) under decree of any court owning or controlling one or more establishment.

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT – Conceptualization and development of an Integrated Circuit product prior to the production of IC product for custom

Continued on Next Page 

RADIATION HARDENED – Integrated Circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical characteristics that demonstrate a capability resist radiation-induced damage from industrial sources, electromagnetic pulses, weapons systems; and/or charged particles in space that can dacircuitry and render a device inoperable. Some IC devices may be considered radiation hardened when their total dose failure level exceeds >300 

krad.[3] A total dose failure level of 500krad is the standard cited in International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulations.[4]
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN SURVEY -- Continued

RADIATION TOLERANT – Integrated Circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical characteristics with limited capability to resist 

radiation induced damage from industrial sources, electromagnetic pulses, industrial sources, weapons systems, and charged particles in space th

damage circuitry and render a device inoperable. Radiation tolerant would cover parts having a total dose failure level >100 krad but less than 30

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT – Basic and applied research in the engineering sciences, as well as design and development of prototype pr

and processes. 

SEMICONDUCTOR – Elemental materials such as silicon and germanium (or compounds like gallium arsenide) that possess levels of electrical conductivity that are less than a conductor but greater than an insulator. The properties of these materials and similar ones can be manipulated to 

conductivity through temperature and/or the use of dopants. 

SINGLE-EVENT EFFECTS RESISTANT – Single-event effects caused by a single energetic particle striking an Integrated Circuit (IC) device. 

Performance of the IC device is not compromised to a point where it is inoperable or not reliable for executing a mission as a result of latch-up, buor gate rupture.

TRUSTED ACCESS PROGRAM – A program implemented by the National Security Agency and the Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) to Integrated Circuit design and manufacturing companies as “trusted” suppliers of application specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) products required fonational security applications.WAFER STARTS PER WEEK – The number of semiconductor wafers that can be processed by an Integrated Circuit on production line(s) in a 7-period.UNITED STATES – The term “United States” includes the fifty states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the island of Guam, Trust Territories, a

Virgin Islands.

[1] Complimentary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) is a class of semiconductor used in digital logic circuits employed in microcontrollers, microprocessors, memory, and other devices. The technology also is used in analog circuits in sensors, transceivdata converters and other systems. [2] Sandia National Laboratories. A minority carrier device is a device in which current is conducted by charge carriers of sign (posi

negative) opposite to the dopant polarity of the underlying semiconductor material. In other words, current carried by electrons (neg

in a p-type semiconductor, or by holes in an n-type semiconductor. In semiconductors, minority charge carriers are less abundant t

majority charge carriers. Minority carrier devices: Bipolar junction transistors, charge-coupled devices (CCDs), solar cells. 

[3] Sandia National Laboratories. [4] ITAR Part 121 – The United States Munitions List (See www.pmddtc.state.gov/consolidated_itar.htm. [Microelectronic circuits aconsidered radiation hardened when they exceed all five of these standards: (1) Total dose of 5x105 Rads (Si); (2) Dose rate upset 

5x108 Rads (Si) per second; (3) Neutron dose of 1x1014 N/cm2; (4) Single-Event upset of 1x10minus;7 or less error/bit/day; and (5) Sin

Event latch-up free and having a dose rate latch-up of 5x108 Rads (Si) per second or greater.] 

Previous Page Table of Contents Nex
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents NexSection 2 Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing General Information - U.S.-Based 2.a Instruction: Please list the Integrated Circuit product Design and Manufacturing market types and capabilities of your company/organizthe United States in calendar year 2006. Check the appropriate boxes that describe the (1) function(s) carried out; and (2) product classes. Include design and manufacturing facilities used to produce Radiation Tolerant, Radiation Hardened, Neutron Hardened, and Single-Event Effects resistant Integrated Circuit products. 

Design and Manufacturing Facility Market Types and Capabilities

 (Check all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability") 

Facility Type?Product Capabilities 

Conventional 

Integrated Circuit 

Products 

Single-Event Effects 

Resistant Radiation Tolerant Radiation Hardened Neutron Hard

Product Classes 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Military 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Military 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Military 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Military 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Yes or No?

Comments: 

Previous Page Table of Contents Nex
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Section 2 Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing - Continued 2.b Instruction: For the market types and capabilities identified in Question 2.a, please specify your design and manufacturing capabilities t

in the United States:

Capability to Design and/or Manufacture - by Technology Node, Wafer Size & Mate

(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No Capability") 

Minimum 

Technology 

Node Capability

[nanometers]

-- by 

Wafer 

Size 

Bulk Silicon 

Silicon on 

Insulator 

Silicon 

Germanium 

Silicon on 

Sapphire 

Gallium 

Nitride 

Silicon 

Carbide 

Gallium 

Arsenide 

Indium 

Phosphate 

Antimonides 

Amorphous 

Silicon 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

10,000 - 6,000 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

6,000 - 3,000 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

3,000 - 1,500 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 

1500 - 

1,000 

6-inch 
8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

1,000 - 800 8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

800 - 500 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

500 - 350 8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

350 - 250 8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

180 - 130 8-inch 

12-inch 
2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

130 - 90 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

90 - 65 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

65 - 45 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

45** - 32 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

32** or less 

12-inch 

Note: 10,000 nanometers equals 10 micrometers. *Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) **Respond to this specification if your company expects twork at this Technology Node by 2011.

Section 2 Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing - Continued 2.c Instruction: Please specify your company's/facility's design and manufacturing capabilities by material type with regard to the productioCircuit products in the United States:

Capability to Design and/or Manufacture - by Device & Material Type 

(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability") 

 DEVICE TYPES

Material Type 

Bulk Silicon 

Silicon on Insulator 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon on Sapphire 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Carbide 

Gallium Arsenide 

Indium Phosphate 

Antimonides 

Amorphous Silicon 

MEMS 

Technologies 

Field Programmable Gate Arrays One-time, Electrically Programmable Gate Arrays Mask Programmable Gate Arrays Structured ASICs [a.k.a. Structured Arrays; Platform ASICs] Standard Cell ASICs [a.k.a. cellbased ASICs] Custom ASICs Mixed Signal Technologies Digital Signal Processors Nonvolatile Memory SRAM DRAM Microprocessors/Coprocessors IR*-Focal Plane Arrays Anti-Tamper Technology MMIC** Technologies Display Electronics *IR=Infrared **MMIC= Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit 
Section 2 Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing - Continued 2.d Instruction: Please specify your company's/facility's design capabilities with regard to the production of specific types of Nonvolatile Mproducts located in the United States:

Note: Do not complete this page if your company/facility does not design Nonvolatile Memory products. Proceed to Section 3

Capability to Design Nonvolatile Memory - by Device, Density, Read-Write Speed 

Memory Density Read Time [Nano Seconds (ns)] Write/Er

 Select all that apply - A blank 

response is counted as "No 

capability" 

[Please pro

specificati

Select all that apply -- A Blank response is counted as "No capability" 

Size 

Memory Device 

Type

<1 Mbit 

1-8 Mbit 

16-32 Mbit 

64-128 Mbit 

256-1024 Mbit 

>1 Gbit <10ns 10-20ns 20-50ns 50-150ns >150ns 

Specify 

data size: 

Word, 

page, 

black, etc. 

Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EPROM) Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM) Flash Ferro Electric (FeRAM) Magnetoresistive (MRAM), (RRAM) MEMS-base (nanotube, NRAM) Phase Change Memory (PCM, a.k.a. PRAM) Polymer Super Permanent Memory (XPM) Zero Capacitor (ZRAM) Other (Specify)Other (Specify)
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Section 2 Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing - Non-Volatile Memory Devices - Continued 2.e Instruction: Please specify your company's/facility's manufacturing capabilities with regard to the production of specific types of NonvMemory products in the United States:Note: Do not complete this page if your company/facility does not manufacture Nonvolatile Memory products. Proceed to Sect

Capability to Manufacture Nonvolatile Memory - by Device, Density, Read-Write Speed 

Memory Density Read Time [Nano Seconds (ns)] Write/E

 Select all that apply - A blank 

response is counted as "No 

capability" 

[Please pr

Select all that apply -- A Blank response is counted as "No capability" specificat

Size 

Memory Device Type 

<1 Mbit 

1-8 Mbit 

16-32 Mbit 

64-128 Mbit 

256-1024 Mbit 

>1 Gbit <10ns 10-20ns 20-50ns 50-150ns >150ns 

Specify data 

size: Word, 

page, black, 

etc. 

Erasable Programmable ReadOnly Memory (EPROM) Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM) Flash Ferro Electric (FeRAM) Magnetoresistive (MRAM), (RRAM) MEMS-base (nanotube, NRAM) Phase Change Memory (PCM, a.k.a. PRAM) Polymer Super Permanent Memory (XPM) Zero Capacitor (ZRAM) Other (Specify)Other (Specify)Previous Page Table of Contents N
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of 

Contents

Section 3 Rad Tolerant, Rad Hardened, Neutron Hardened Design & Manufacturing3.a With regard to radiation-tolerant, radiation-hardened and neutron-hardened Integrated Circuits, my company/facility:

Select all that apply. (A blank response is counted as "No" capability and/or "No" interest.) 

Designing Manufacturing

Radiation Tolerant Radiation Tolerant Radiation Hardened Radiation Hardened Neutron Hardened Neutron Hardened 

Currently has capabilities and is now providing in the following areas: 

Single-Event Effects Resistant 

Single-Event Effects Resistant 

Designing Manufacturing

Radiation Tolerant Radiation Tolerant Radiation Hardened Radiation Hardened Neutron Hardened Neutron Hardened 

Is NOT now engaged in this activity, but

has previous experience in the following 

areas: 

Single-Event Effects Resistant 

Single-Event Effects Resistant 

Designing Manufacturing

Radiation Tolerant Radiation Tolerant Radiation Hardened Radiation Hardened Neutron Hardened Neutron Hardened 

If called upon by the U.S. Government, would be interested in: 

Single-Event Effects Resistant 

Single-Event Effects Resistant 

*Company/facility possesses manufacturing process technology to achieve radiation tolerance, hardening, or neutron hardening. Previous Page Table of 

Contents
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Section 3 Rad Tolerant, Rad Hardened, Neutron Hardened IC Design & Manufacturing3.b Instruction: Please identify your company's/facility's capabilities to design and/or manufacture custom Integrated Circuit produradiation-tolerant, radiation-hardened, neutron hardened, and/or Single-Event effects resistant at locations in the United Stat

Capability to Design and/or Manufacture - by Technology Node, Wafer Size 

(Select all that apply - A blank response is counted as "No capabili

Radiation Tolerant Radiation Hardened Neutron Hardened Single-Event Effects Resistant

(Select all that apply - A blank response is counted as "No capabili

Minimum Technology Node 

Capability

[nanometers]

-- by Wafer 

Size 

Bulk Silicon 

Silicon on Insulator 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon on Sapphire 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Carbide 

Gallium Arsenide 

Indium Phosphate 

Antimonides 

Amorphous Silicon 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

10,000- 6,000 12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

6,000 - 3,000 12-inch 
2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

 3,000- 1,500 12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

1,500 - 1,000 12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

1,000- 800 

12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

800 - 500 8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

500- 350 8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

350 - 250 8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

250- 180 

8-inch 
12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

180 - 130 8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

130- 90 8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

90 - 65 

12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

65- 45 

12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

45 – 32** 8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

32** or less 

12-inch 

Note: 10,000 nanometers equals 10 micrometers *Respond to this specification if your company expects to develop a capability to work at this Technolo

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Section 3 Rad Tolerant, Rad Hardened IC Design & Manufacturing - Devices & Materials 3.c Instruction: Please specify your company's/organization's design and manufacturing capabilities by device type with regard production of custom radiation-tolerant, radiation-hardened, and neutron hardened Integrated Circuit products located in the Un

 Capability to Design and/or Manufacture - by Device & Material Type 

 (Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability") 

Type of Device

Radiation Tolerant 

Radiation Hardened 

Neutron Hardened 

Single-Event Effects 

Resistant 

Bulk Silicon 

Silicon on Insulator 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon on Sapphire 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Carbide 

Gallium Arsenide 

Indium Phosphate 

Field Programmable Gate Arrays One-time, Electrically Programmable Gate Arrays Mask Programmable Gate Arrays Structured ASICs [a.k.a. Structured Arrays; Platform ASICs] Standard Cell ASICs [a.k.a. cellbased ASICs] Custom ASICs Mixed Signal ASICs Digital Signal Processors Nonvolatile Memory SRAM Memory DRAM Memory Processors IR Focal Plane Arrays Anti-Tamper Technology MMIC Technologies 
Display Electronics 

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Section 4 Manufacturing Capabilities & Production Rates4.a Instructions: Specify the maximum Wafer Start capacity per week of your organization/facility in 2007 in the UnitedStates by circuit technology node, wafer size, and material type.Note: Assumes 7-day a week operations. 

Wafer Starts Per Week by Circuit Technology Node, Wafer Size & Material Type 

(State your wafer-start-per-week capacity -- A blank response is counted as "No capability") 

Technology 

Node 

Capability

[nanometers]

-- by 

Wafer 

Size 

Bulk Silicon 

Silicon on Insulator 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon on Sapphire 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Carbide 

Gallium Arsenide 

Indium Phosphate 

Antimonides 

Amorphous Silicon 

MEMS Technologies 

Organic Technologies 

Carbon-Based 

Technologies 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

10,000* - 6,000 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

6,000 - 3,000 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

3,000 - 1,500 

12-inch 
2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

1,500* - 1,000 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

1,000 - 800 8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

800 - 500 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

500* - 350 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

350 - 250 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

250 - 

180 

4-inch 
6-inch 8-inch 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

130 - 90 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

90 - 65 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

65 - 45 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 8-inch 

45** - 32 

12-inch 

2- or 3-

inch 

4-inch 6-inch 

32** or less 8-inch 
12-inch 

Note: 10,000 nanometers equals 10 micrometers *Respond to this specification if your company expects to develop a capability to work at this Technology Node by 2011.
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of 

Contents

Ne

Section 4 U.S.-Based Manufacturing Facility Utilization & Availability4.b Please (1) state the average manufacturing capacity utilization rates at your U.S. -based fabrication facility for the years 2003-2006. Thestate the maximum number of wafer starts possible per week at your manufacturing facility; (3) state the actual average wafer starts per weeyour facility; and (4) indicate whether this facility will be operating through 2011.

Average Manufacturing Capacity Utilization Rates 

2003% 2004% 2005% 2006% 

2007 

Maximum 

number 

of Wafer 

Starts Per 

Week* 

2007 Average Actual 

Wafer Starts Per 

Week** 

Will this Facility Op

Through 2011? 

*Normalized to 8-inch wafer equivalents. **Assumes 7-days-a-week operations. Previous Page Table of Contents Ne
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Section 4 Mask Blank Supply Practices, Inventory, & Outlook - 2006 -- Continued 4.c Instruction: Complete this page only if your company/organization has captive, in-house IC mask-making capability located in the Unitthat supports IC manufacturing activities, or that could be used to support IC manufacturing.

Binary Mask Blanks Phase-Shift Mask Blanks 

InHouse by External Mask Makers In- House by Exter

Ma

What percent of your Company's/Organization's binary mask requirements are fulfilled by mask production performed: 

What percent of your Company's/Organization's phase-shift mask requirements are fulfilled by mask production performed: 

Average Number of Binary Mask Blanks in Inventory 

Average Number of Phase-Shift Mask Blanks in Inventory 

% of Binary Mask Blank Inventory Used Monthly % of Phase-Shift Blank Inventory Used Monthly Shelf Life - Binary Mask Blanks (Weeks) Shelf Life - Phase-Shift Mask Blanks (Weeks)Cycle time for delivery of mask blanks from day of order. (Weeks)

Cycle time for delivery of mask blanks from day of order (Weeks)

Percent of Company/Organization Integrated Circuit Manufacturing activity utilizing Binary Mask Blanks 

Percent of Company/Organization Integrated Circuit Manufacturing activity utilizing Phase-Shift Mask Blanks 

Percent of Company's/Organization's Manufacturing Business that will require Binary Mask Blanks in 2011* (Projected)

Percent of Company's/Organization's Manufacturing Business that will require PhaseShift Blanks in 2011* (Projected)

Number of Suppliers Your Company/Organization Uses 

Number of Suppliers Your Company/Organization Uses 

% of Total Supplier Names Country City % of Total Supplier Names Country C
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Section 4 Mask Blank Supply Practices, Inventory, & Outlook - 2006 -- Continued4.c Instruction: Complete this page only if your company/organization has captive, in-house IC mask-making capability located in the Unitthat supports IC manufacturing activities, or that could be used to support IC manufacturing.

Binary Mask Blanks Phase-Shift Mask Blanks 

Binary Mask Blank Manufacturer 

Binary Mask Blank Distributor 

Phase-Shift Mask Blank Manufacturer 

Phase-ShifBlank Distr

Does your company purchase its mask blanks directly from: 

Does your company purchase its mask blanks directly from: 

Adequate numbers of binary mask blanks 

Timely delivery of binary mask blanks 

Adequate numbers of phase-shift mask blanks 

Timely deliphase-shift blanks 

Does your company/organization currently have problems obtaining: 

Does your company/organization currently have problems obtaining: 

Is your company/organization at a competitive disadvantage due to limited supply of binary mask blanks? 

Is your company/organization at a competitive disadvantage due to limited supply of phase shift mask blanks? 

Is your company/organization concerned about future availability and timely supply of mask blanks? 

Is your company/organization concerned about future availability and timely supply of mask blanks? 

Does your mask blank supplier operate a Just-InTime manufacturing process? Does your company maintain a month or more supply of mask blanks? Is there a need to establish a capability to fabricate phase shift mask blanks in the United States? Previous Page Table of Contents 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of ContentsATTENTION: If this is an individual facility response to the survey [not a corporate response], please proceed toSection 11, the CERTIFICATION Page. Facility managers should not complete Sections 5-10. If this is a corporate-level response, please proceed to fill out Sections 5 - 10 and the Certification Page (Section 11). Select the appropriate link below:Individual Facility Response Corporate-Level Response
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next PageInstruction: Questions in Section 5 are to be completed by corporate offices. Facility managers should 

not complete these sections. 

Section 5 Interest and Capability to Supply Products for National Security 5.a Design ServicesWhat percent of your company's/organiza % tion's U.S.-based Integrated Circuit design capacity* was utilized to help produce national security-related products in 2007? What percent of your company's/organiza % tion's U.S.-based Integrated Circuit design capacity would you be willing to make available for, or otherwise commit to future national security-related work assuming fair cost and profit? What percent of your company's/organization % 's foreign-based design capacity was utilized to perform U.S. national security-related work in 2007? 5.b Manufacturing ServicesWhat percent of your company's/organizati % on's U.S.-based manufacturing capacity* was utilized to help produce national security-related products in 2007? What percent of your company's/organizati % on's U.S.-based manufacturing capacity would you be willing to make available for, or otherwise commit to future national security-related work assuming fair cost and profit? What percent of your company's/organization % 's foreign-based manufacturing capacity was utilized to perform U.S. national security-related work in 2007? Comments: * Capability to perform design work Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next PageSection 5 Interest in Certification in the Trusted Access Program - Continued 5.c Does your company/organization have in place today an ability to design custom Integrated Circuit products in a trusted environment located in the UnitedStates that conforms to Department of Defense standards for the conduct of such work?5.d Does you company/organization have in place today an ability to manufacture custom Integrated Circuit products in a trusted environment located in the UnitedStates that conforms to Department of Defense standards for the conduct of such work?5.e Has your company/organization been certified by DOD's Trusted Access Program Office at the National Security Agency, or by the Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) as a 'trusted' supplier of Integrated Circuit products?5.f Is your company/organization seeking, or planning to seek, certification by DOD's Trusted Access Program Office at the National Security Agency, or by the Defense Microelectronics Activity as a 'trusted' supplier of Integrated Circuit products?5.g If your company/organization is not seeking or not planning to seek certification, please explain why in the space provided below.Explanation: 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next PageSection 5 Interest in Certification in the Trusted Access Program - Continued 5.h Instruction: If you answered "Yes" to Question 5.e or 5.f, please identify the manufacturingand/or design facilities for which (1) certification has been awarded, or (2) the facilities for which certification is being sought or may be sought.If you answered "No" to Questions 5.e or 5.f, please proceed to the next survey page (5.i). 

Facility Name(s) City State 

Awarded 

Certification 

Seeking 

Certification 

Planning to Seek 

Certification 

Previous Page Table of 

Contents

Next Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next PageSection 5 Outlook on Future Capability to Supply IC Products for U.S. National Security 

 Types of Devices 

Field Programmable Gate Arrays 

Structures ASICs [a.k.a. Structured Arrays] 

Mixed Signal ASICs 

SRAM Memory 

One-time, Electrically Programmable Gate Arrays 

Standard Cell ASICs [a.k.a. cell-based ASICs] 

Digital Signal Processors 

Processors 

Mask Programmable Gate Arrays Custom ASICs Nonvolatile Memory MMIC Technologies 

5.i Instruction: Please identify those Integrated Circuit product areas where your company's/organization's design capabilities in the United Statesare most likely to diminish or cease over the next five years:(Select all that apply)

IR-Focal Plane Arrays Anti-Tamper Technology DRAM Memory Display Electronics 

 Types of Devices 

Field Programmable Gate Arrays 

Structures ASICs [a.k.a. Structured Arrays] 

Mixed Signal ASICs 

SRAM Memory 

One-time, Electrically Programmable Gate Arrays 

Standard Cell ASICs [a.k.a. cell-based ASICs] 

Digital Signal Processors 

Processors 

Mask Programmable Gate Arrays 

Custom ASICs Nonvolatile Memory MMIC Technologies 

5.j Instruction: Please identify those Integrated Circuit product areas where your company's/organization's manufacturing capabilities in theUnited States are most likely to diminish or cease over the next five years:  (Select all that apply) IR-Focal 

Plane Arrays 

Anti-Tamper Technology 

DRAM Memory 

Display Electronics 

5.k Instruction: Please describe, if applicable, the primary factors contributing to any projected decline in your 

company's/organization's manufacturing capability in the United States:

Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Section 6 Performance of Production Functions for the Manufacture of Integrated Circuits Instruction: Questions in Section 6 are to be completed 

by corporate offices. Facility managers should not complete these sections. 

Answer the questions on this page ONLY if your 

company/organization operates fabrication facilities in the 

United States to produce Integrated Circuit products. If your company does not operate Integrated Circuit manufacturing facilities in the United States, please proceed to... 

......... Section 7.

(Select all that apply) 

Mask Making 

Wafer Manufacturing (Front End)

Wafer Manufacturing (Back End)

Wafer Sorting 

Circuit Test 

Packaging 

Final Test & Inspection 

6.a My company/organization in 2007 was capable of performing the following Integrated Circuit manufacturing steps at facilities inthe United States that it owns and operates:6.b My company/organization in 2007 was not capable of performing the following Integrated Circuit manufacturing steps at its own facilities in the United States. However, we employed otherU.S.-based vendors to complete the following tasks at their facilities in the United States:6.c My company/organization anticipates for the 2008-2011 period that it will retain capability to perform the following Integrated Circuit Manufacturing Steps at facilities in the United States that itowns and operates:6.d My company/organization for the 2008-2011 period does not anticipate being capable of performing the following Integrated Circuit manufacturing steps at its own facilities in the United States - but will secure other U.S.-based vendors to complete theseManufacturing Steps at their facilities in the United States.Previous Page Table of Contents 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Section 6 Performance of Production Functions for the Manufacture of Integrated Circuits - ContinuedInstruction: Answer the questions on this page ONLY if your company/organization operates fabrication facilities in the United States to produce Integrated Circuit products. If your company does not operate Integrated Circuit manufacturing facilities in the United States,please proceed to Section 7.

(Select all that apply) 

Mask Making 

Wafer Manufacturing (Front End)

Wafer Manufacturing (Back End)

Wafer Sorting 

Circuit Test 

Packaging 

Final Test & Inspection 

Other (Specify Here)

 

Other (Specify Here)

6.e Between 2007 and 2011, my company/organization expects that its use of outsourcing for the following Manufacturing Steps will:6.f Between 2007 and 2011, my company's/organization's capabilities to perform the following Manufacturing Steps at facilities in the United States will:6.g My company/organization outsources the following Integrated Circuit Manufacturing Steps to facilitieslocated outside of the United States that it owns and operates.6.h My company outsources the following Integrated Circuit Manufacturing Steps to facilities located outside of the United States that are owned and/or operated bynon-affiliated foreign companies. 

Technology Node [Nanometers] 

10,000-6,000 

1,500- 1,000 

500- 350 

180-130 

6,000- 3,000 

1,000- 800 

350- 250 130-90 

6.i My company/organization outsources outside of the United States one or more of the seven Integrated Circuit Manufacturing Steps cited at the top of this pagefor products built with the following minimum Technology Nodes:

3,000- 1,500 

800- 500 

250- 180 90-65 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

Section 6 Performance of Production Functions for the Manufacture of Integrated Circuits - Continued

No U.S. 

capability No U.S. contractor found Insufficie

Foreign 

government 

subsidies - Direct

Foreign government subsidies - 

Indirect

Lack of tax/financial ince

in 

Lower costs To assure better market access Competitive 

6.j The primary reasons why my company/organization outsources outside of the United States one or more of the following Manufacturing Steps cited at the top of this page are: 

(Please provide Yes/No 

 response to all that apply.)

Maximize profit To better serve offshore markets 

Other 

(Please 

Specify)

6.k In the space provided, please identify the countries to which your company/organization outsources one or more of the Manufacturing Steps identified above:INSTRUCTION: If your company outsources any of the production steps listed above to locations outside of the United States, then 

complete the Next Page of Section 6. 

Previous Page Table of Contents 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Section 6 Performance of Production Steps for the Manufacture of Integrated Circuits - Continued6.I INSTRUCTION: Please specify the characteristics of the IC products for which your company outsources Fabrication Step

 If your company does not operate Integrated Circuit manufacturing facilities in the United 

States, please proceed to 

Section 7

Outsourced Production - by Device Type, Material, & Circuit Technolo

(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")

Capability Semiconductor Material Types Circuit Technology No

Device Type 

Radiation Tolerant 

Radiation Hardened 

Neutron Hardened 

Single-Event Effects 

Resistant 

Bulk Silicon 

Silicon on Insulator 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon on Sapphire 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Carbide 

Gallium Arsenide 

Indium Phosphide 

Antimonides 

Amorphous Silicon 

Carbon Based 

Technologies 

10,000 - 6,000 

6,000 - 3,000 

3,000 - 1,500 

1,500 - 1,000 

1,000 - 800 

800 - 500 

500 - 350 

350 - 250 

Field Programmable Gate Arrays One-time, Electrically Programmable Gate Arrays Mask Programmable Gate Arrays Structured ASICs [a.k.a. Structured arrays; Platform ASICs] Standard Cell ASICs [a.k.a. cell-based ASICs] Custom ASICs Mixed Signal ASICs Digital Signal Processors Nonvolatile Memory Previous Page Table of Contents 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Section 6 Performance of Production Steps for the Manufacture of Integrated Circuits – 6L Continued6.I INSTRUCTION: Please specify the characteristics of the IC products for which your company outsources Fabrication Step

 If your company does not operate Integrated Circuit manufacturing facilities in the United 

States, please proceed to 

Section 7

Outsourced Production - by Device Type, Material, & Circuit Technolo

(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")

Capability Semiconductor Material Types Circuit Technology No

Device Type 

Radiation Tolerant 

Radiation Hardened 

Neutron Hardened 

Single-Event Effects 

Resistant 

Bulk Silicon 

Silicon on Insulator 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon on Sapphire 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Carbide 

Gallium Arsenide 

Indium Phosphide 

Antimonides 

Amorphous Silicon 

Carbon Based 

Technologies 

10,000 - 6,000 

6,000 - 3,000 

3,000 - 1,500 

1,500 - 1,000 

1,000 - 800 

800 - 500 

500 - 350 

350 - 250 

SRAM Memory DRAM Memory Processors IR Focal Plane Arrays Anti-Tamper Technology MMIC Technologies Display Electronics Previous Page Table of Contents 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Section 7 Performance of Design Steps for Integrated Circuits Instruction: Questions in Section 7 are to be completed by corporate offices. Facility managers should not complete these 

sections. Answer the questions on this page ONLY if your 

company/organization operates Design Facilities in the United States to produce Integrated Circuit products. If your company/organization does not operate

Integrated Circuit Design Facilities in the United 

States, please proceed to Section 8.(Select all that apply)

Digital 

Analog 

RTL Design* 

Synthesis** 

Physical Layout*** 

Functional Verification  

Test Vector Generation** *** 

Other (Specify Here)

Other (Specify Here)

Other (Specify Here)

7.a My company/organization is capable of performing the following Integrated Circuit DesignSteps at facilities in the United States that it owns and operates. 7.b My company/organization is not capable of performing the following Integrated Circuit DesignSteps at its own facilities in the United States. However, we employ other U.S.-based vendors to complete the following tasks at their facilities in the United States.7.c My company/organization anticipates for the 2008-2011 period that it will retain capability to perform the following Integrated Circuit Design Stepsat facilities in the United States that it owns and operates. 7.d My company/organization for the 2008-2011 period does not anticipate being capable of performing all of the following Integrated Circuit Design Steps at its own facilities in the United States - but we will secure other U.S.-based vendors tocomplete these Design Steps at their facilities in the United States.*Register Transfer Level (RTL) = Starting point for design; **Synthesis = Automated way of creating a gate level representation; ***Physical layout = generation of Integrated Circuits in graphic data system (GDSII) format (by hand for custom/analog/mixed signal, automated for standard cell) Functional Verification = Timing and correctness checks between physical and logical; ** ***Test vector generation = Input to test. Previous Page Table of Contents Nex
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next PaSection 7 Performance of Design Steps for Integrated Circuits - ContinuedInstruction: Answer the questions on this page 

ONLY if your company/organization operates 

Design Facilities in the United States to produce Integrated Circuit products. If your company/organization does not operate

Integrated Circuit Design Facilities in the

United States, please proceed to Section 8.

(Select all that apply) 

Digital 

Analog 

RTL Design* 

Synthesis** 

Physical Layout*** 

Functional Verification  

Test Vector Generation** *** 

Other (Specify Here)

 

Other (Specify Here)

 

Other (Specify Here)

 

Other (Specify Here)

7.e Between 2007 and 2011, my company expects that its use of outsourcing for the following DesignSteps will:7.f Between 2007 and 2011, my company's capabilities to perform the following Design Stepsfacilities in the United States will:7.g My company outsources the following Integrated Circuit Design Steps to facilities located outside of the United States that it owns and operates:7.h My company outsources the following Integrated Circuit Design Steps to facilities located outside of the United States that are owned and/or operated by non-affiliated foreign companies:7.i In the space provided, please identify the countries to which your company outsources the one or more of the Design Steps identified above:INSTRUCTION: If your company outsources any of the Design Steps listed above to locations outside of the United State

then your company must complete Question 10 of this survey section.

*Register Transfer Level (RTL) = Starting point for design; **Synthesis = Automated way of creating a gate level representation; ***Physical layout = generation of Integrated Circuits in graphic data system (GDSII) format (by hand for custom/analog/mixed signal, automated for 

standard cell);  Functional Verification = Timing and correctness checks between physical and logical; ** ***Test vector generation = Input to test. 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next Pa
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Section 7 Performance of Design Functions for Integrated Circuits - Continued7.j INSTRUCTION: Your company indicated on the previous survey page that it outsources one or more of the following Integrated Circuit outside of the United States. Please Specify the characteristics of the IC products for which your company outsources Design Steps.

Outsourced Design Steps - by Device Type, Material, & Circuit Technol

(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")

Capability Semiconductor Material Types Circuit Technology Nod

Device Type 

Radiation Tolerant 

Radiation Hardened 

Neutron Hardened 

Single-Event Effects 

Resistant 

Bulk Silicon 

Silicon on Insulator 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon on Sapphire 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Carbide 

Gallium Arsenide 

Indium Phosphide 

Antimonides 

Amorphous Silicon 

Carbon Based 

Technologies 

10,000 - 6,000 

6,000 - 3,000 

3,000 - 1,500 

1,500 - 1,000 

1,000 - 800 

800 - 500 

500 - 350 

350 - 250 

Field Programmable Gate Arrays One-time, Electrically Programmable Gate Arrays Mask Programmable Gate Arrays Structured ASICs [a.k.a. Structured arrays; Platform ASICs] Standard Cell ASICs [a.k.a. cell-based ASICs] Custom ASICs Mixed Signal ASICs Digital Signal Processors Nonvolatile Memory SRAM Memory DRAM Memory 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Section 7 Performance of Design Functions for Integrated Circuits – 7j Continu7.j INSTRUCTION: Your company indicated on the previous survey page that it outsources one or more of the following Integrated Circuit outside of the United States. Please Specify the characteristics of the IC products for which your company outsources Design Steps.

Outsourced Design Steps - by Device Type, Material, & Circuit Technol

(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")

Capability Semiconductor Material Types Circuit Technology Nod

Device Type 

Radiation Tolerant 

Radiation Hardened 

Neutron Hardened 

Single-Event Effects 

Resistant 

Bulk Silicon 

Silicon on Insulator 

Silicon Germanium 

Silicon on Sapphire 

Gallium Nitride 

Silicon Carbide 

Gallium Arsenide 

Indium Phosphide 

Antimonides 

Amorphous Silicon 

Carbon Based 

Technologies 

10,000 - 6,000 

6,000 - 3,000 

3,000 - 1,500 

1,500 - 1,000 

1,000 - 800 

800 - 500 

500 - 350 

350 - 250 

Processors IR Focal Plane Arrays Anti-Tamper Technology MMIC Technologies Display Electronics Previous Page Table of Contents 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Instruction: Questions in Section 8 are to be completed by corporate offices. Facility managers should not complete these secSection 8 FINANCIALS - Income Statement for Integrated Circuit Business Unit8.a Instructions: Businesses and organizations that are part of a larger company with non-related business operations should provide an iCircuit Business Unit.My company/organization (in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $operates on a: 2003 2004 2005 

Net Sales (and other revenue)Cost of goods sold  Gross Profit $ - $ - $ - $ Selling, general and administration expenses Depreciation  Total Operating Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ Operating Income $ - $ - $ - $ Interest Expense Other non-operating expenses Interest Income Other non-operating income  Total Non-Operating Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ Income before income taxes $ - $ - $ - $ Provision for income taxes 

 Net Income $ - $ - $ - $ 

Comments: *Non-profit laboratories or non-profit RDT&E organizations need not complete Section 8. 
Section 8 FINANCIALS - Income Statement for Integrated Circuit Business Unit - Cont.8.b Instructions: Companies/organizations whose sole focus is the design and/or production of Integrated Circuit products should provide activities.*My company/organization (in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $operates on a: 2003 2004 2005 

Net Sales (and other revenue)Cost of goods sold  Gross Profit $ - $ - $ - $ Selling, general and administration expenses Depreciation  Total Operating Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ Operating Income $ - $ - $ - $ Interest Expense Other non-operating expenses Interest Income Other non-operating income  Total Non-Operating Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ Income before income taxes $ - $ - $ - $ Provision for income taxes 

 Net Income $ - $ - $ - $ 

Comments: *Non-profit laboratories or non-profit RDT&E organizations need not complete Section 8. Previous Page Table of Contents 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of 

Contents

Next Page

Section 8 FINANCIALS - Balance Sheet for Integrated Circuit Business Unit 8.c Instructions: Businesses and organizations that are part of a larger company with non-related business operations, should provide balance sheet data only for their Integrated Circuit Business Unit.

2003 2004 2005 2006 

2007 

(est.) 

 Current Assets 

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = 

$12,000.00) 

Cash Marketable securities Accounts receivable, net Inventories Prepaid Expenses Other current assets (please specify)

Total Current Assets 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

 $ - 

$ 

- 

 Non-Current Assets 

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = 

$12,000.00) 

Property, facility and equipment* 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

 $ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

Property & Land 

Plant/Buildings 

Instruction:Break out capital expenditures [Do not double count PP&E in 'Total NonCurrent Assets.'] Machines & Equipment Less accumulated depreciation 

Net fixed assets 

$ 

- 

 $ - 

$ 

- 

 $ - 

$ 

- 

Investments Intangibles (patents, trademarks, goodwill)Other noncurrent assets (please specify)

Total non-current assets 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

 $ - 

$ 

- 

Total assets 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

 $ - 

$ 

- 

 Liabilities and Owners'  Equity 
 Current Liabilities 

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = 

$12,000.00) 

Accounts payable Estimated tax liability (e.g. income taxes payable)Accrued expenses Long-term debt (Current portion)

due in one year 

Other current liabilities (please specify)

Total current liabilities 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

 $ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

 Non-Current Liabilities 

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = 

$12,000.00) 

Long-term debt (less current portion)Deferred income taxes Other long-term liabilities (please specify)

Total non-current liabilities 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

 $ - 

$ 

- 

Total liabilities 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

 $ - 

$ 

- 

 Owners' Equity 

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = 

$12,000.00) 

Common stock Additional paid-in capital 

Total paid-in capital 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

 $ - 

$ 

- 

Retained earnings Less treasury stock (stock repurchase)

Total owners' equity 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

 $ - 

 $ - 

$ 

- 

Total Liabilities and Owners' Equity** 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

 $ - 

$ 

- 

Comments: *PP&E should be reported at original acquisition cost. **Attention: Please report any significant one-time events on the next 

page of this survey instrument . Note: Non-profit laboratories or non-profit RDT&E organizations need not complete Section 8. 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next PageSection 8 FINANCIALS - Balance Sheet for Integrated Circuit Business Unit - Continued8.d Reporting of Significant One-Time Events

Year Instruction: Please provide an explanation of any significant one-time events that would skew assessments of the economic performance of your company/organization.

2003 2004 2005 2006 

2007 (est.) 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of 

Contents

Next 

Page

Section 8 FINANCIALS - Balance Sheet for Corporate Parent Operations 8.e Instructions: Businesses and organizations that are part of a larger company with non-related business operations, should provide balance sheet data for corporate-wide activities

2003 2004 2005 2006 

2007 

(est.) 

 Current Assets 

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = 

$12,000.00) 

Cash $ Marketable securities $ Inventories $ Prepaid Expenses $ Other current assets (please specify)

$ 

Total Current Assets $ $ - $ - $ - $ - 

 Non-Current Assets 

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = 

$12,000.00) 

Property, facility and equipment* $ $ - $ - $ - $ - 

Property & Land $ Plant/Buildings $ 

Instruction: Break out capital expenditures [Do not double countPP&E in 'Total Non-Current Assets.']

Machines & Equipment $ 

Less accumulated depreciation $ Net fixed assets $ $ - $ - $ - $ - Investments $ Intangibles (patents, trademarks, goodwill) $ Other assets (please specify) $ Total non-current assets $ $ - $ - $ - $ - Total assets $ $ - $ - $ - $ - 

 Liabilities and Owners' Equity  Current Liabilities (in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = 
$12,000.00) 

Accounts payable $ Estimated tax liability (e.g. income taxes payable) $ Accrued expenses $ Long-term debt (Current portion)

due in one year $ 

Other current liabilities (please specify)

 $ 

Total current liabilities $ $ - $ - $ - $ - 

 Non-Current Liabilities 

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = 

$12,000.00) 

Long-term debt (less current portion)Deferred income taxes $ Other long-term liabilities (please specify)

$ 

Total non-current liabilities $ $ - $ - $ - $ - 

Total liabilities $ $ - $ - $ - $ - 

 Owners' Equity 

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = 

$12,000.00) 

Common stock Additional paid-in capital 

Total paid-in capital $ $ - $ - $ - $ - 

Retained earnings $ Less treasury stock (stock repurchase)

Total owners' equity $ $ - $ - $ - $ - 

Total Liabilities and Owners' Equity** $ $ - $ - $ - $ - 

Comments: * PP&E should be reported at original acquisition cost. **Attention: Please report any significant one-time events on the next page of this survey instrument. 

Note: Non-profit laboratories or non-profit RDT&E organizations need not complete Section 8. 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next PageSection 8 FINANCIALS - Balance Sheet for Corporate Parent Operations - Continued8.f Reporting of Significant One-Time Events

Year Instruction: Please provide an explanation of any significant one-time events that would skew assessments of the economic performance of your company/organization.

2003 2004 2005 2006 

2007 (est) 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next 

Page

Instruction: Questions in Section 9 are to be completed by corporate offices. Facility managers should not complete these sections.Section 9 Integrated Circuit Product R&D - Expenditures by Function 9.a Instructions: Companies/organizations whose sole focus is the production of Integrated Circuit products should report Corporate-wide R&D expenditure figures for the table below. Those businesses and organizations that are part of a larger company with other non-related business operations should report R&D expenditure figures only for their Integrated Circuit Business Unit.

R&D Expenditures Supporting Design and/or Manufacturing Operations 

(Corporate or Integrated Circuit Business Unit) 

(Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00) 

Category 

 Year

2003 2004 2005 2006 

2007 

(est.) 

Basic Research Applied Research and Development Product Development Process Development 

Total R&D 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 
Section 9 Integrated Circuit Product R&D - Funding Segmented by Source 9.b Instructions: Companies/organizations whose sole focus is the production of Integrated Circuit products should report Corporate-wide R&D funding figures for the table below. Those businesses and organizations that are part of a larger company with other non-Integrated Circuit related business operations should report R&D funding figures only for their Integrated Circuit Business Unit.

R&D Funding Supporting Design and/or Manufacturing Operations 

(Corporate or Integrated Circuit Business Unit) 

(Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00) 

Category 2003 2004 2005 2006 

2007 

(est.) 

Parent Company (Internal)Total Federal Government State and Local Government U.S. Private Entity [includes industry, universities, and all other non-government funding]Foreign Investors [includes private, industry, governments, and universities]Other (Please Specify)

Total R&D 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

$ 

- 

Comments: Previous Page Table of Contents Next 

Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next PageSection 9 U.S. R&D Occupational Breakdown 9.c Instruction: Please breakout R&D employment. Numbers of Employees - Full Time Equivalent* 

Occupation 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Projected

U.S. Citizens or Green Card Holders:  Development Staff (e.g., Engineers)  Research Staff (e.g., Scientists)  All Other Staff Non-U.S. Citizens/Foreign Nationals:  Development Staff (e.g., Engineers)  Research Staff (e.g., Scientists)  All Other Staff 

Total 0 0 0 0 0 

* Full-time equivalent refers to part-time workers, who in the aggregate, work a 35-40 hour work week. Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next PageSection 9 Integrated Circuit-Related R&D Expenditures 2003-2007 - Top Five Countries9.d Instructions: For years 2003-2007, please state the five top countries (based on total dollars) in which your company 

funded research and development activities.*

Total R&D Expenditures Supporting Design and/or Manufacturing 

(Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00) 

Top Five Countries for IC-Related R&D Investment 

Ranking 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (est.) 

Country 1 R&D Expenditure Country 2 R&D Expenditure Country 3 R&D Expenditure Country 4 R&D Expenditure Country 5 R&D Expenditure 

* Corporate or Integrated Circuit Business Unit Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

 Previous Page Table of Contents Section 10 Integrated Circuit-Related Capital Investment 10.a Instructions: For years 2003-2007, please break down (based on total dollars) your company's capital expenditures 1) by plocation (U.S., Non-U.S.) using the five categories provided in the table below.

Expenditures Supporting Design and/or Manufacturing Operations (Corporate or Integrated Circuit Business 

(Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00) 

Category 2003 2004 2005 2006 

U.S. Non-U.S. U.S. Non-U.S. U.S. Non-U.S. U.S. Non-U.S. U

Cost Reduction & Replacement Expansion & Improvement of Existing Production lines New Products Health, Safety and/or Pollution Control Other (Please Specify)Total Capital Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $  Previous Page Table of Contents 
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next PageSection 10 Integrated Circuit-Related Capital Expenditures 2003-2007 - Top Five Countries 10.b Instructions: For years 2003-2007, please state the five top countries (based on total dollars) in which your company 

made capital expenditures.

Total Capital Expenditures Supporting Design and/or Manufacturing 

(Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00) 

Top Five Countries for IC-Related Investment 

Ranking 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (est.) 

Country 1 Captial Expenditure Country 2 Capital Expenditure Country 3 Capital Expenditure Country 4 Capital Expenditure Country 5 Capital Expenditure 

Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page
BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act 

CERTIFICATION 

The undersigned certifies that the information herein supplied in response to this questionnaire is 

complete and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. It is a criminal offense to willfully make a false statement or representation to any department or agency of the United States Government as to any matter within its jurisdiction. [18 U.S.C.A. 1001 (1984 & SUPP. 1197)] 

 Company Name Company's Internet Address  Name of Authorizing Official Title of Authorizing Official Email  Phone Number Ext. Date 

If Point-of-Contact is same as above, select here 

 Point-of-Contact Name Title  Email Phone Number Ext. 

Would you like a copy of the final report?