NATL INST. OF STAND & TECH

AlllOb T7fl cm2

Government Programs on

Advanced Technology and

Manufacturing Techniques:

Comments on U.S.A., Japan,

and Europe

W. M. Bullis

Electron Devices Division

Center for Electronics and Electrical Engineering

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

June 1978

100

• U56

78-1482

Prepared for National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234
I
attcnal Bureau of Standards APR 17 197§

NBSIR 78-1482

4 t » GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS ON

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND

MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES:

COMMENTS ON U.S.A., JAPAN,

AND EUROPE

W. M. Bu II is

Electron Devices Division

Center for Electronics and Electrical Engineering

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D C. 20234

June 1 978

Prepared for National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

.. , . , i X', ^

0 /_

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Government Programs on Advanced Technology

and Manufacturing Techniques: Comments

on U.S.A., Japan, and Europe*

W.. Murray Bu 1 1 i s

Abst ract

For many years the U.S. semiconductor industry benefited significantly from government-financed technology

developments, principally in the areas of defense and space.

In recent years, however, government policies and actions

have tended to reduce both the level of direct government

support of device research and the incentives for private

sector investment in this area. At the same time intense

competition from foreign producers and major governmentfinanced programs to advance integrated circuit technology,

especially in Japan, have threatened the U.S. technological

lead in semiconductor device technology. These international

challenges are being viewed by many in the industry as re- quiring responsive efforts by the Federal Government. One

such response could be in the form of technological cooperation between government and industry in areas where in industry may desire assistance in solving generic design, manufacturing, or testing problems. The Department of Commerce

is considering new mechanisms for carrying out such cooperative efforts. These mechanisms are described following a brief review of other past and present government programs

in advanced technology and manufacturing techniques — both

here and abroad.

Key WordsCooperative technology; electronics; foreign

competition; integrated circuits; semiconductor technology;

VLSI .

The influence of foreign competition on the present and future

health of the U.S. semiconductor industry is receiving an increasing

amount of public attention at all levels of government and commerce. This is an extremely complex problem which encompasses a wide range of

economic considerations and business strategies in addition to the technological issues which are the subject of this session. Our concern at

the National Bureau of Standards, of course, is also with technological

-Edited text of a talk given in the Advanced Technology Session,

SEMICON/West 1978, San Mateo, California, May 25, 1978.

1
issues. We have long been associated with the semiconductor device,

materials, and equipment industries through our program to develop semiconductor measurement technology.

The important economic and business problems — insufficient risk

capital, unequal tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, export controls,

and government regulatory climate — have been apparent to all. Although

the technological aspects of the foreign competition problem were not

quite so clear, it is the Japanese government's major investment in

development of VLSI technology which precipitated a good bit of the

public attention [1 - 3 ]

- Therefore we set out to study what the technological aspects might be and what Government actions might be proposed

in response.

In considering these questions, it is instructive to gain a bit of

historical perspective. In this country the association between the

Federal Government — especially in the areas of defense and space — and

the semiconductor device industry has been a significant factor in the

rapid development of new technologies. The extensive literature on this

topic, especially that related to integrated circuit development, has

recently been reviewed and summarized by Asher and Strom of the Institute

for Defense Analyses [4].

For the purposes of the present discussion, there are several important points to be considered. First, the Government has provided con- siderable support for semiconductor research and development. The

Semiconductor Industry Association ( S I A ) estimates that various branches

of the Government have supported nearly 30 percent of the total semiconductor R & D effort between 1958 and 1976 either directly or in conjunction with development of equipment or systems (see table l) [5]. In the

integrated circuit field, the direct Government support of applied

research was nearly $30 million in the six years immediately following

their invention (see table 2) [6]. Second, in the years from 1958

through 197^ the military and space efforts of the Federal Government,

especially through the Minuteman Missile program, provided both the design

impetus and the initial market for integrated circuits. This is a factor

which may be even more important than the direct R & D support [4,73 - Third, through various contracts for production preparedness, the U.S.

Army, Air Force, and Navy supplied about $36 million to industry to

build production equipment at three critical stages in the development

of semiconductors and integrated circuits [7].

Fourth, commercial interests, especially computers, also played a key role in the development of the American semiconductor industry. For

example, in the early sixties, IBM was the largest single consumer of

semiconductor devices [ 7 ]

-

Finally, and most significant for the present discussion, the level

of Government funding for semiconductor R & D has declined in recent

years. For example the SIA estimates that the average annual direct

R & D support level between 1970 and 1976 was less than half the average

annual level between 1958 and 1969 [5]. The decline is vividly displayed

2
in figure I, a plot of DoD contractural funding for exploratory development of electron devices which, although it includes devices other than

semiconductors, illustrates the trends [8]. Note that the dollar in- creases during the last decade have only been sufficient to maintain

level activity (in constant dollars).

The Japanese semiconductor industry has also enjoyed a long and

fruitful relationship with its government. The semiconductor industry

in Japan generally has lagged that in the United States. Through the

early and middle 60's Japanese production was principally discrete devices for consumer electronics; integrated circuit production did not

begin until 1968. Government electronic component programs date from

1955; semi conductor- re 1 ated programs have been underway for more than a decade (see table 3)- These programs have been primarily oriented toward

commercial applications with heavy emphasis on information processing and

computers

The Japanese VLSI Project was started in March 1976. This four-year

program has a total budget of about 70,000 million yen which translates

at current exchange rates to over $300 million [ 9 ]. About 40 percent of

the funding is supplied by the Japanese government while the remainder is

supplied by the five participating companies. The VLSI Cooperative

Labora tor i es , which are expected to absorb about one-fifth of the re- sources available to the Project, carry out the more basic aspects of the

work while two other laboratories, the Computer Development Laboratories

and the NEC-Toshiba Information Systems Laboratories, apply the research

to more specific developments. The Project is intended to develop the

various technologies necessary to produce very large scale integrated

circuits (see table A). The objectives are divided in such a way that

the Cooperative Laboratories work on microfabrication and crystal technology development in their entirety and the fundamental parts of the

development of process, test and evaluation, and device technologies.

The two applied laboratories carry out the design technology work and

the more product oriented work on the last three technologies. Finally,

the five individual companies which participate in the Project develop

specific circuits and hardware for use in the computers which they will

manufacture

The thrust of the Project is the development of advanced technology

which, if successfully developed and applied, would enable the Japanese

to attain a significant world-wide position in semiconductor technology

for computer applications. Although the stated intention is to publish

the advances achieved in the open literature, the advantages accruing to

those actually carrying out the work are well known.

The situation in Europe is substantially different. A report prepared under the sponsorship of the German, British, Dutch, and French

governments indicates that with the possible exception of Philips there

is no large and successful European producer of integrated circuits [

1 0 ]

It would appear that the Europeans have not yet been able to come up with

a collective solution to the problem of competition with the United States

3
and Japan in the integrated circuit field. The European Economic Community is in the process of developing a comprehensive plan for European

activity in this area [11], but this plan appears to be a long way from

i mp 1 ementat i on

.

Individual governments have responded to this situation in various

ways. In 197^, the West German Ministry for Research and Technology

began a five-year program on electronic components intended to open up

particularly promising areas, especially in microelectronics. The program, which had a planned expenditure of nearly DM 300 million, was undertaken as a response to the government support and procurement contracts

granted in other countries, particularly the United States and Japan,

which have, in West Germany's view, provided those countries with a leading position in microelectronics. Originally this program covered work

in integrated circuits, optoelectronic components, materials development,

and semiconductor production methods, as well as basic research on new components. Because of the continuing volatility in prices and technological advances, this program has been extended for two or three more

years and has been expanded to increase the emphasis on applications,

especially watches and appliances. In addition, the West German government has a variety of programs which will provide significant markets for

electronic components [12]; these include improvement and enlargement of

the telecommunications systems of the German Post Office, an electronic

data processing promotion program which will provide nearly DM 300 million

per year to the German computer industry for research and development,

and major expenditures for new defense equipment.

The British government has long supported advanced research and

development in the semiconductor device field, primarily through the

military laboratories and the British Post Office. These programs have

generally been highly specific to a particular device, advanced technology, or application. They have frequently come at critical times in the

development of various technologies. For example, beg i nn i ng th i s year,

the British expect to spend over £ 1 million to improve electron beam

fabrication capabilities in the U.K. [13]- On a larger scale, the U.K.

Department of Industry is expected to announce soon a major five-year

program to assist the British 1C industry by assuring local sources of

circuit design and LSI and VLSI manufacturing expertise [ 1 4 ] . This program is estimated at £ 75 to 100 million, split between government and

industry in a way yet to be decided.

France has undertaken a 600-mi 1 1 ion-franc , 5

- year program to bolster

its 1C industry [15]. One goal of this program is production of circuits

with l-pm feature dimensions by 1 98 3 [

1 6 ] . This R & D effort is to be

supplemented by research centers of mul t

i -nat ional companies attracted by

the French market. The latter approach is similar to that used by a variety of private European companies to obtain additional advanced

technology. Many such companies, especially Philips and Siemens, have

been active in acquiring full or partial control of U.S. semiconductor

houses. The multi-national nature of the semiconductor business,

especially when the controlling interests are not United States companies,
provides additional avenues for the uncontrolled diffusion of American

semiconductor technology throughout the world.

So much for historical prespective. Where do we go from here?

Clearly, the industry desires changes in trade, regulatory matters, and

tax laws which would permit it to compete more effectively in international markets and to attract the necessary risk capital for expansion.

The question remains as to whether the industry desires additional

Government assistance in technological areas. During the past year

Jud French, Director of the Bureau's Center for Electronics and Electrical

Engineering, has discussed these matters with many industry leaders. He

found universal agreement that there is indeed a technological element

to the problem of international competition and widespread interest in

exploring the possible benefits and problems of a cooperative Governmentindustry response. Although there were mixed feelings as to the type of

cooperation desired, there was general agreement that next generation

manufactur i ng procedures would be too costly in capital equipment and

associated infratechnology for most companies to develop independently.

This is further borne out by the variety and depth of technology exchange

agreements which are being entered into at an increasing rate by many

companies of all sizes.

One common response was made by all: Government- industry cooperation is most desired in connection with basic manufacturing technology —

or infratechnology — which undergirds the industry. This infratechnology

is for generic, industry-wide application. It includes new and more definitive basic data, principles, test methods and associated techniques,

and equipment for common use throughout the industry. It may be used in

development and design, in procurement and evaluation of manufacturing

materials, in carrying out and controlling manufacturing processes, in

specification and test of finished products, etc. Government support of

basic infratechnology both avoids unnecessary duplication of expenditure

for non-proprietary, commonly-held information and technology and frees

industrial funds for the development of new and higher quality proprietary designs, processes, equipment, products, and applications.

Such an approach, though it sounds strangely like the Japanese VLSI

Project, differs considerably from traditional practices for Government

support of the semiconductor industry in the United States. Nearly all

of the support for semiconductor R & D has been directed either at very

basic research activities or toward development of specific devices and

circuits. No mechanism is being effectively utilized for the support of

manufacturing science, and that fundamentally is what development of

infratechnology is all about.

One possible mechanism might appear to be the Defense Department's

Manufacturing Technology Program. The semiconductor device industry

has conducted quite a number of projects under this program. However,

as V. J. Adduci noted last year [17], the funds available for manufacturing technology appear to be designated exclusively for Manufacturing Methods and Technology (MM&T) projects and thus are denied for

5
R & D use even though the regulations provide for a category called

"R & D Mantech". Adduci strongly recommended that manufacturing technology funding be appropriated specifically for R & D efforts. Even in

the MM&T activities, special efforts must be made if the results are to

be broadly used. Adduci pointed out that the documentation on completed

MM&T projects has generally been inadequate to permit another organization

to implement the newly developed technique or capability. He emphasized

that this type of information must be specifically described and requested

in the Request for Proposals and that adequate time and funding must be

provided to permit its preparation.

As another example of the difficulty of conducting manufacturing

R & D, consider the program on integrated circuit reliability and manu- facturing science, which the Navy attempted to establish five or six

years ago. This was to be a long range research program with emphasis

on just those manufactu r i ng techniques needed for VLSI. Following an initial survey phase, this promising program unfortunately failed to

receive adequate support.

At the National Bureau of Standards, we have had first hand experience with this problem. For more than ten years, we have been conducting a research and development program in a single area of the infratechnology spectrum: measurement technology for semiconductors, applicable

both in the marketplace and on the production line. This program covers

the range from applied research on fundamental material properties to the

development and documentation of specific measurement instrumentation and

techniques. It has already had significant impact in the areas of silicon resistivity measurements, wire bonding, thermal character i zat ion of

transistors, leak testing of hermetic devices, test structure design and

development, and dimensional metrology for photomasks. For the last five

years, major funding for this program has been supplied by the Defense

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) . This funding which, of course,

emphasizes the more research oriented aspects of the program is now decreasing and is scheduled to terminate next fiscal year in accordance

with the original plan. ARPA's policy does not typically permit support

of long term programs. Its goal is to stimulate and demonstrate technical advances and then spin them off. Various avenues within the

Defense Department are being explored to obtain alternative sources of

funding which will permit the program to continue with its present broad

scope and generic nature. To date we have not had great success,

especially with those parts of the program relating to the development

and implementation of instrumentation and techniques for use in

manufactur i ng.

So the environment for programs on manufactur i ng science for integrated circuits at the present time does not appear to be particularly

favorable. The Department of Commerce, of which the Bureau is a part,

recognizes the problems and has asked for the opportunity to determine

the desirability and feasibility of cooperative programs between industry, universities, and Government to aid industry, through, for example,

development of appropriate i n f ra techno 1 ogy . As presently envisaged, the

6
Bureau would play a key role in establishing and promoting such cooperative efforts. As now conceived, the operating principles would include

these

° Users must recognize that a problem or opportunity exists and

seek collaboration; that is, the industry must want the Government to

participate and must take a lead role in defining the problem and the

approach to a solution.

o Each project must be planned and implemented co 1 1 abora t i ve 1

y

among Government, technology producers, technology users, and the public.

° There must be a c 1 ea r rationale for Federal involvement in each

project and a plan for ending such involvement must be built into the

plan at the outset.

° The program must be open to all interested parties.

o Provisions for appropriate access to the output must be developed.

0 In view of finite funding, tasks under the program must leverage

existing institutions, programs, funding, and capab i 1 i t i es , and a systematic process must be used for analyzing prospective activities so that

choices can be made rationally and realistic program limits can be set.

The proposed operating process contains a number of critical steps,

ranging from the initial identification of the problem or opportunity

to evaluation of the success of the responsive task. Discussion of these

in sufficient detail for a clear understanding is much too lengthy for

this brief preview. Instead, it is appropriate to re-emphasize the first

principle of the program: That the initiative is left to the beneficiaries of the technology, that is to those who feel the desire to collaborate

in developing new generic technology, or in strengthening or establishing

mechanisms for developing technology in cooperative ways.

In the development of cooperative efforts, the Department would look

first to existing institutions in the private sector (trade associations,

consortia, research institutes, and universities) as participating groups

and would help in problem definition and in the solution of the problem.

This is not to be simply a grant program, however; industry, universities,

and government must share in some way in the support, responsibility, and

activity.

This new concept is just in the study stages, and, as of today, no program has been authorized or funded by Congress. We plan to involve

industry in the study and to advise the industry of our plans as they

develop both informally and eventually through a Federal Register notice.

Professional or trade organizations are good mechanisms for bringing

the industry's needs to the attention of the proper people in Government:

Dr. Jordan Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, in the

7
Department of Commerce, or Dr. Howard Sorrows, Technology Advisor to the

Director c

r N6S, who is responsible for developing cooperative technology

concepts a the Bureau. They will welcome views and recommendations for

joint technical effor* They will welcome, also, advice and suggestions

concerning the operation of such cooperative efforts which can be con- sidered during the study phase.

Remember also, that NBS already has a program on semiconductor

technology underway, and it is not too soon for the semiconductor industry

to make its needs known to the Bureau with respect to this existing

program. Many mechanisms already exist for cooperation betwen NBS and

industry, and many industries have already made use of them in solving

problems ranging from gage block stability to improved dental and roofing

materials; so exploration of mutual interests is likely to be beneficial.

These are not the only approaches appropriate for meeting the

international challenges. For example, the National Science Foundation

has established a submicron facility at Cornell for the use of academic

and industrial researchers. The Defense Department has reversed its

hands-off policy on development of integrated circuits and is establishing, beginning next fiscal year, a f i ve-to-seven year program to develop

very high speed integrated circuits with submicron geometry. And the

Department of Energy is exploring un i ve rs i ty- i ndus t ry collaborations to

broaden the technology base for photovoltaic-solar cells. In any event,

the industry clearly will have a key, independent role to play.

Whatever approaches are chosen, however, we must decide what we want to do and get on with it if we are to successfully meet the present

challenges. The point is admirably made in the editorial in the April

1978 issue of Instrument and Apparatus News which ends in the following

way

:

"But the question of whether or not the Japanese have some sort

of edge in the i nternat iona 1 marketplace is really not crucial.

Whatever edge they may have, they are likely to keep. What is

crucial to us is that we get our own house in order. We should

develop and refine our own "edges' so that we will once again

be the dominant force in the world marketplace. Let's admit once and for all that the Japanese are not doing anything

underhanded or unethical. Let's admit that they are just

playing the game a little better than us in some areas. And,

finally, let's do something to put ourselves back on top." [18]

Acknowl edgement

The author wishes to thank R. I. Scace for his assistance in

collecting and summarizing information for this report.

8
References

o

5

1. Altman, L., and Cohen, C. L. , The Gathering Wave of Japanese

Technology, Electronics 50_ (12), 99 - 1 22 (June 9, 1977) -

2. Torrero, E. A., Technological Japan: formula for success, Spectrum

1

(9), 36-39 (September 1977).

3- Anon., The Japanese challenge in semiconductors, Business Week,

pp. 12-lk (July 11, 1977).

k. Asher, N. J., and Strom, L. D., The Role of the Department of

Defense in the Development of Integrated Circuits, IDA Paper P-1271

(May 1977).

5. Semiconductor Industry Association estimate (March 1978).

6. Asher, N. J., and Strom, L. D., op. cit. p. 76.

7. Linville, J. G., and Hogan, C. L . , Intellectual and Economic Fuel

for the Electronics Revolution, Science 195 (^4283), 1 1 07“ 1113

(18 March 1977)

8. 1977 Annual Report, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.

9- Outline of VLSI Technology Research Association, VLSI Technology

Research Association, June 1, 1977-

10. Mackintosh Consultants, The Future of European Electronics, quoted

in European Scientific Notes (March 1977)

11. Anon., EEC May Help Members in 1C R&D, Electronic News 22_ (1151), 30

(September 26, 1977).

12. Kindel, K. -W. , Survey of the German Market for Electronic Components

and Assemblies, prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce (June

1977).

1 3 • Anon . , flm for e 1 ectron-beam fabrication, Physics in Technology 9_, ^3 (1978).

]h. Smith, K. , Britain plans to aid 1C makers, Electronics 5J_ (10),

88-89 (May 1

1 , 1978)

15- Anon., A plan for the development of integrated circuits in France

(August 1977).

16. Anon., Circuits Integres: Les Decisions Prises par les Pouvoirs

Publics, letter d' information du Ministere de l' Industrie, Paris

No. 82 (2 May 1978)

9
17. Adduci, V. J., speech to Electronics Manufacturing Technology

Conference, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, March 3, 1977- (At the time

this speech was given Mr. Adduci was president of the Electronic

Industries Association.)

18. Gallagher, T. V. , "Made in Japan", Instrument and Apparatus News

26 (A)

,

A 7 (Apri 1 1978)

.

10
Table 1 — Estimates of U.S. Semiconductor R & D Support

from 1958 through 1976

Direct Government Support $ 350 M 14.5

From Product Sales to Government $ 352 M 14.6

Industry Funded $1713 M 71.0

Source: Semiconductor Industry Association, March 1978.

Table 2 — Early U.S. Government Support of Integrated Circuit R & D

Year DoD NASA Sum

1959 $ 3. 12 M $ 3. 12

I960 $ 3-79 M $ 3-79

1961 $ 6.03 M $0.14 M $ 6.17

1962 $ 5- 1 1 M $0. 1 1 M $ 5.22

1963 $ 5-23 M $0.24 M $ 5-47

1964 $ 4. 18 M $1.36 M $ 5.54

M

M

M

M

M

M

Total $27-46 M $1 .85 M $29.31 M

a

1 1

Source

Asher and Strom [6]
6.2

ELECTRON

DEVICE

CONTRACTUAL

FUNDING

($M)

Figure 1. Defense Department contractural funding for

exploratory development of electron devices.

12
Table 3 — Japanese Government Semiconductor Programs

j

t

1966-71 Super-High Performance Computer System $ 28 M

1971-78 Pattern Information Processing System $ 97 M

1973 Process Technologies Program $ 20 M

S i 1 i con gate Hi tach

CMOS Toshiba

Bipolar digital Fujitsu 1975-

77

1976

-

1980

NMOS NEC

Industrial linear NEC

NTT Memory Development $ 67 M

VLSI Project $310 M

3

VLSI Technology Research Association

Cooperative Laboratories

Computer Development Laboratories

(Fujitsu, Hitachi, Mitsubishi)

NEC-Toshiba Information Systems Laboratories

(NEC, Toshiba)

a Total budget; split 40% government, 60% ndustry

»

Table 4 VLSI Technology Research Association R 6 D Items

1. Microfabrication Technology

2. Crystal Technology

3. Design Technology

4. Process Technology

5. Test and Evaluation Technology

6. Device Technology

13
NBS-J )4A i«k v.

U.S. DEPT. 09 COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. S8BLI0GRAPHIC DATA

SHEET NBSIR 78- 1 482

2. Gov't Accession

No.

3. Recipient’s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Government Programs on Advanced Technology and Manufacturing

Techniques: Comments on U.S. A., Japan, and Europe

5. Publication Date

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

W. Murray Bu 1 1 i

s

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 7216599

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Same as item 9-

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) For many years the U.S. semiconductor industry benefited significantly from governmentfinanced technology developments, principally in the areas of defense and space. In recent years, however, government policies and actions have tended to reduce both the

level of direct government support of device research and the incentives for private

sector investment in this area. At the same time intense competition from foreign

producers and major government-financed programs to advance integrated circuit technology, especially in Japan, have threatened the U.S. technological lead in semiconductor device technology. These international challenges are being viewed by many

in the industry as requiring responsive efforts by the Federal Government. One such

response could be in the form of technological cooperation between government and industry in areas where the industry may desire assistance in solving generic design,

manufacturing, or testing problems. The Department of Commerce is considering new mechanisms for carrying out such cooperative efforts. These mechanisms are described

following a brief review of other past and present government programs in advanced

technology and manufacturing techniques — both here and abroad.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons

)

Cooperative technology; electronics; foreign competition; integrated circuits;

semiconductor technology; VLSI.

18. AVAILABILITY [x2 Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

' 21. NO. OF PAGES

1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

UNCL ASSIFIED 15

1

1 Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office Washineton. D.C. 20402. SD Stock No. SN003-003

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

^22. Price

[x~j Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151 UNCLASSIFIED $4.00

i U3COMM-DC 8603B-P7e
I

9

*

7
V