Industrial Advisory Committee (IAC)

Meeting Summary

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Washington, DC

(Public Meeting conducted via web conference) 

December 8, 2022

Advisory Committee Members:

Michael Splinter, Chair General Partner, MRS Business and Technology Advisors

Susan Feindt, Vice-Chair Fellow, Analog Devices Inc.

James Ang Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Daniel Armbrust Silicon Catalyst

Susie Armstrong Qualcomm

Ahmad Reza Shaikh Bahai Texas Instruments

William Chappell Microsoft

Michael Fritze Potomac Institute for Policy

Charles Gray Ford Motor Company

Carol Handwerker Purdue University

Dierdre Hanford Synopsys

Raj Jammy MITRE Ingenuity

Kenneth Joyce Brewer Science

Ann Kelleher Intel Corporation

Mukesh Khare IBM

Meredith LaBeau Calumet Electronics

Tsu-Jae King Liu University of California Berkeley

Omkaram Nalamasu Applied Materials

Debo Olaosebikan Kepler Computing Inc.

Alexander Oscilowski iTEL Technology Center America

Willy Chao-Wei Shih Harvard Business School

Brandon Tucker Washtenaw Community College

Hon-Sum Philip Wong Stanford University

Anthony Yen ASML

DOC/NIST Leadership:

Gina Raimondo Secretary of Commerce

 Laurie Locascio Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology

Director, NIST

James Olthoff Associate Director for Laboratory Programs (ADLP) & Interim 

CHIPS R&D Metrology Director

Mojdeh Bahar Associate Director for Innovation & Industry Services (ADIIS)

Del Brockett Associate Director for Management Resources (ADMR) 

Jason Boehm Chief of Staff

 Ben Davis Designated Federal Officer

 Tamiko Ford Designated Federal Officer
NIST Presenters (listed in alphabetical order):

Mojdeh Bahar Interim CHIPS R&D Manufacturing Director

Eric Lin Interim CHIPS R&D Director

Non-NIST Presenters (listed in alphabetical order):

Dan Armbrust R&D Working Group Chair, Silicon Catalyst

Ronnie Chatterji White House Coordinator for CHIPS Implementation, 

Executive Office of the President

Lisa Friedersdorf Assistant Director for Microelectronics, Materials, and 

Critical Minerals, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy

Dierdre Hanford Organized and Public & Private Partnerships Working 

Group Chair, Synopsys

Barry Johnson Assistant Director for Microelectronics Materials, and 

Critical Minerals, National Science Foundation (NSF)

Dev Shenoy Principal Director for Microelectronics, Department of 

Defense (DOD)
I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

Mr. Benjamin Davis and Ms. Tamiko Ford, both serving as the Designated Federal Officer 

(DFO), called the meeting to order and took roll call of the Committee members. Susie 

Armstrong was absent, and Tsu-Jae King Liu attended remotely, but all other members were

present. Mr. Davis then introduced the IAC Committee Chair, Michael Splinter.

Mr. Splinter thanked the Committee for their engagement, emphasizing the level of 

commitment the Committee has shown regarding the implementation of the Creating Helpful 

Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) Act. Mr. Splinter stated that the work done thus 

far was divided amongst three working groups and that the Committee was looking to start at a 

level of education for this meeting. There would be no final recommendations today, but a 

progress report on the three Committee working groups would be provided. The R&D Gaps 

working group, which identifies needed areas of technological investment, is led by Dan 

Armbrust. The Organization of Public & Private Partnership (PPP) working group, is led by 

Deirdre Hanford. The final Committee group is Workforce Development, which looks at 

developing the workforce required to increase semiconductor manufacturing in the US, which 

is led by Dr. Tsu-Jae King Liu. Mr. Splinter stated that the Committee will hear from these 

groups today and looks forward to a productive day. Mr. Splinter then turned to Ms. Susan 

Feindt, the vice chair. Ms. Feindt addressed the Committee and stressed the importance of the 

mission of this Committee, looking at the challenging issues, and committing to the best for our 

industry. Ms. Feindt went over the agenda for the meeting and which groups will be speaking, 

and when breaks will be taken. 

II. DOC Welcome Remarks

Mr. Davis, acknowledging that Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo, was delayed and

would be speaking later, turned the meeting over to Dr. Laurie Locascio, Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director of NIST. Dr. Locascio welcomed the 

Committee and those who attended the meeting. Dr. Locascio stressed the importance of 

growing the semiconductor industry and stated that the channels of communication to those 

who are part of the CHIPS Act are clear and help create a strong industry within the country. 

CHIPS is a program with the bold ambition to bring everyone in the ecosystem together. Dr. 

Locascio stated she is looking forward to progress, acknowledged the multiple agencies 

involved, and thanked all in attendance for their work. 

III. CHIPS R&D Update

Mr. Davis turned the meeting over to Dr. Eric Lin. Dr. Lin thanked the Committee. 

acknowledging that the CHIPS Act is happening at an unprecedented time. Dr. Lin presented an

update on the NIST R&D Program. Dr. Lin stressed the need for a continuous, sustained engine 

of innovation for the microelectronics industry. Dr. Lin summarized the CHIPS Act, stating

CHIPS is divided into manufacturing for semiconductors, and investments in R&D. Dr. Lin

also stated that the CHIPS R&D Program was working very closely with government agency 

partners. Dr. Lin stated that the guiding ideal is to build integrated ecosystem as another level in 

reducing any ‘friction’ on innovation and increasing cooperation in the U.S. A focus on 

building partnerships in manufacturing between industry, government, and academia will create 
the best chances for success. Dr. Lin acknowledged that all of the working groups saw the 

Committee’s advice as a critical part of moving forward. 

Dr. Lin noted that since the passage of the CHIPS Act, there has been significant engagement 

across multiple agencies, especially through requests for information (RFIs). Two metrologyfocused workshops were held, with high levels of representation and engagement. The CHIPS 

R&D Program highly values the workshop findings, and is working to sustain engagement with 

stakeholders. Dr. Lin then discussed in detail two of the components of the CHIPS R&D 

Program.

• National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC): The center will serve as a focal 

point of innovation and leadership for the semiconductor ecosystem. It will serve as an 

inclusive, open resource and platform, ensuring access barriers will be as low as 

possible. The center will be an independent public-private consortium that will be 

developed with a lot of input. Elements identified in the November meetings were 

discussed in the letter sent out to the Committee, including the need for leverage 

resources across the country and prototyping capabilities related to scaling and focused 

on manufacturing. Dr. Lin stated there will be a focus on longer-term efforts over the 

next five years, not just on immediate needs. Dr. Lin stated that the NSTC is to be a

key convening body within the ecosystem. A white paper will be released in the first 

quarter of the calendar year.

• National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program (NAPMP): To strengthen 

semiconductor advanced test assembly and packaging capabilities in the domestic 

ecosystem, leveraging public-private partnerships. This will involve taking a close look 

at different technology areas within this industry sector. The current list presented is a 

summary, not a full list, showing the industry’s potential, and areas to be focused on. 

Those involved in the Program will identify areas that still need to be developed and 

will leverage as much of the industry as possible.

Mr. Davis then turned the meeting over to Mojdeh Bahar, the Interim CHIPS R&D 

Manufacturing USA Director. Ms. Bahar covered the Manufacturing USA institutes, including 

illustrating what the network’s model is and how it works. Manufacturing USA institutes are 

public-private partnerships where technology at Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) 4–7 of 

industry, government, and academia work together in a pre-competitive space. 

Mr. Davis brought a pause to the presentation at the arrival of Madam Secretary Raimondo, who 

then addressed the Committee. Ms. Raimondo greeted the Committee members, then thanked the 

assembly. Ms. Raimondo compared the Committee to her experience as the Governor of Rhode 

Island when she gathered experts to help inform her initiatives as governor. Ms. Raimondo stated 

that the CHIPS program is a high-level priority at the White House and that President Biden is 

thankful for these efforts. Ms. Raimondo stated that the Administration acknowledges the 

innovation and R&D strategy of the Committee will directly affect the American economy by 

highlighting the incentives for the industry, the importance of R&D, and building a roadmap to 

success. Ms. Raimondo stated that the focus on the R&D Roadmap, the workforce, and building 

national capabilities will lead to success in the future. She also emphasized the value and impact 
of public-private partnerships. 

Ms. Raimondo provided highlights from her economic speech by outlining four key elements:

1) Investing in America, protecting semiconductor technology, renewing public-private 

partnerships, calling the private sector to step up, and working with the Administration;

2) nudging the TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company) to do more and 

fulfill the opportunities for a massive microchip plant or GigaFab in the U.S.;

3) leaning into education and trade skills training; and 

4) changing the way we teach engineering in America so more women, people of color,

and lower-income individuals stay in engineering programs. 

Ms. Raimondo referenced the success story in Rhode Island of women and people of color who 

improved their Advanced Placement (AP) science test scores and stated this was very important 

to America’s future. She thanked the Committee and assembly once more and then departed.

Mr. Davis turned the meeting back to Ms. Bahar. Ms. Bahar stated that Manufacturing USA 

institutes leverage the expertise of industry and academia, allowing white papers and roadmaps 

to be made. NIST held an Advanced Technology Roadmap Grant Competition to help illustrate 

the best way for the industry to move forward. A Request for Input (RFI) was published, which 

requested input for what topics the industry believes will work best for the Manufacturing USA 

institute. This RFI will inform how the program will move forward.

Ms. Bahar then turned the meeting to Dr. James Olthoff, Interim CHIPS R&D Metrology 

Director, who discussed the CHIPS Act, NIST metrology, and the power of measurements and 

standards. Dr. Olthoff stated that measurements and standards are a driving force in microchip 

technologies. Dr. Olthoff stated that this program is focused on breaking into four major focus 

areas: grand challenges; broad-based awards and partnerships; workforce; and instruments and 

facilities. Dr. Olthoff stated that the group benefited directly from workshops, which led to the 

development of the NIST report and clarified the grand challenges the industry needs to 

overcome to advance their applications. The process consolidated 32 paths down to 20 

programmatic areas, which created two cluster areas. One cluster was IT and standards, and the 

second cluster focused more on the material aspects of the industry, including real-time data 

and infrastructure. Other areas will be developed along the way and will support the entire 

industry, but will focus primarily on R&D.

Dr. Lin closed out the presentation on the capacity to meet the larger goals of the CHIPS Act. 

He stated that focusing on the different ways to advance not only the industry, but the greater 

ecosystem, including coordinating with international partners, is vital to success. Dr. Lin

emphasized that R&D can be mobilized and leveraged to find specific program areas to 

enhance. Dr. Lin also highlighted the importance of creating an active dialogue and finding

commonalities and stated these conversations are not separate, distinct, or conducted in 

isolation. Dr. Lin discussed interagency coordination to give a sense of the greater breadth and 

scale and to identify the many ways to assist and support the ecosystem with as large an impact 
as possible. Dr. Lin gave some examples of the support received. 

Dr. Lin used an example of a question that was asked about the difference between the 

Department of Commerce (DOC) and DOD Microelectronics Commons programs. Dr. Lin

showed both programs are focused on building prototyping facilities, advancing technology 

through the Valley of Death, and both utilizing resources available to participants. Dr. Lin

stated that the difference is that DOC programs are focused on the industry. DOD programs 

focus more on government needs. DOC follows a coordinated, integrated path that targets and 

focuses on specific purposes and alignment timeframes. Dr. Lin stated that they were focusing 

on the DOD Microelectronics Commons program and the NSTC, adding that both will be 

launched in the new calendar year. Dr. Lin discussed alignment frameworks, focusing on:

• Road mapping

• Leadership execution management

• Resource coordination

• Access coordination

Dr. Lin illustrated an interagency program/dynamic ecosystem scenario, to be tailored to each 

industry, showing how the various programs work together. He showed how an auto

manufacturer could work with the NSTC to be brought into the system to increase avenues and 

their benefits. This created a successful pathway to the Foundry, defense programs, and the 

commercial sector for auto manufacturing. Dr. Lin emphasized taking a stakeholder point of 

view, instead of having stakeholders navigate the structure. 

Dr. Lin highlighted several next big steps, including an NSTC white paper to be released in the 

first quarter of 2023, with more information available at CHIPS.gov. He encouraged attendees 

to read the CHIPS implementation strategy and to join NSTC’s mailing list. Dr. Lin stated 

CHIPS provides an exciting opportunity to innovate new ways to manufacture. He gave room 

for questions and answers.

Questions and Answers:

Q. How do different people from different teams work together?

A. Dr. Lin replied that this is a challenge. At the end of the day, it comes down to people and

having people look for a way to find access, including through possible open-source tools. Ideas

are available, including centers. No specific answer but very dedicated people.

Q. Is there a formal interagency working group looking for industry opportunities?

A. Dr. Lin replied that co-sharing is occurring at a policy level and additional staffing will be 

required. NIST asked the NSTC and other entities to lean into this approach of co-sharing and

to also design a formal group and build a culture to get the details right. 

Q. Working with allied and friendly countries is important to the success of the program. How 

can this be seen in working with friendly nations?

A. Dr. Lin replied that there are like-minded partners who understand the value of research, and 

values such as transparency and reciprocity. He stated that industry consensus is fruitful and 

that specifics are to be determined, as many other countries are in an early stage for their 
versions of the US CHIPS Act. He added that the government is in contact with other countries 

through several existing fora. 

Q. Regarding focus areas, what are the next steps? What are NIST’s workforce development

ideas?

A. Dr. Olthoff replied that the first step is to conduct a deep dive into the ten areas identified to 

find the needs and how to address them, which NIST has not established yet. The next step will 

involve finding fundamental research and impacts. In terms of workforce, NIST works on a 

small scale but plays a large role in the PhDs and the impact in quantum computing areas. NIST

wants to engage with institutions and build a program to build the concepts. NIST has another 

program to be fully developed, using graduate students, academics, government, and industry. 

Q. Is there an overlap by design between the NSTC and DOD ME Commons? 

A. Dr. Lin replied that is some overlap in terms of the types of capabilities to support, but great 

care is being taken to ensure that there is not duplication and that we are not reaching any 

overcapacity for any capability. We are working diligently to look at what matches properly 

and get all programs working at the same time to allow close alignment.

Mr. Splinter thanked the presenters. 

IV. R&D Working Group Update

Mr. Davis turned the meeting over to Dan Armbrust, the R&D Working Group Chair from 

Silicon Catalyst. Mr. Armbrust stated that it was an honor to be a chair of the group and work 

once more with colleagues. Mr. Armbrust stated that to set up expectations, this presentation 

was a progress report. Mr. Armbrust stated that there were no recommendations, as expected, 

and moved on to the present. Mr. Armbrust stated that there were three charges for the working 

groups. 

• The first was addressing R&D gaps by going after ecosystem issues that were longstanding, more affordable, and could be done well. 

• The second was framing the gaps in research and ecosystems and providing

recommendations on how the CHIPS Act could address those areas. 

• The third was developing these recommendations involved working with academia, 

industries, startups, and startup incubators to rapidly wrap up recommendations. 

The working group met virtually and set expectations, discovered expertise was missing, 

established who they wanted to hear from, and charged everyone to go through the grand 

challenges and find the gaps through experiences. This included condensing information, 

synthesizing information, and looking forward to breakout team discussions and plans to 

interact in late January and early February of 2023. The working group formed a series of 

questions about U.S. leadership and innovation, which are addressed in the presentation. 

Mr. Armbrust then discussed the working group’s status. Four meetings have been completed, 

including prepared materials. There are currently 14 members, with a 97% attendance rate. The 

remaining members were provided with recordings and documentation of each of the meetings, 
including various suggestions and thoughts. Mr. Armbrust stated that these meetings were built 

on a very significant body of thoughts, including documents showing progress. Industry and 

agency white papers were assembled and utilized frequently. 

Mr. Armbrust acknowledged some areas are not up to date and that a first round of 15 sessions 

will be held to record 20-minute sessions and document questions. He stated it is nearly 

impossible to record more efficiently, so questions will be documented in round 1. Round 2 will 

deal with further gaps as they are discovered. Mr. Armbrust stated that recordings will be made 

available. Three breakout teams were made to draft recommendations, but they are not ready to 

share all recommendations. He reiterated that this is on schedule to be completed by February

2023, but the team will likely do this in late January. Mr. Armbrust added that startups require 

very clear prioritization, and clarity on what needs to be done to ensure startups are not 

overwhelmed. Startups can leverage a fresh beginning and benefit from not having to halt other 

projects. The intention through January is to consolidate recommendations from the working 

group to be sent to the IAC, then DOC. 

Questions and Answers:

No questions were asked. 

V. Organizational and PPP Working Group Update

Mr. Davis turned the meeting over to Ms. Deirdre Hanford, the chair of the Organized and 

Public & Private Partnerships Working Group from Synopsys. Ms. Hanford thanked the 

Committee and illustrated who the working group responds to and answers to. Ms. Hanford 

stated that this was a big job and that they were at the end of the beginning of the group, 

acknowledging that there is much work ahead of them. Ms. Hanford stated that they started and 

listened carefully to what DOC had to say and drove supporting national security and economic 

security. Ms. Hanford stated that the working group had a great cross-section of members, 

drafted additional members, and represented cross-industry fields. Ms. Hanford stated that the 

working group’s charge is three-fold and includes many organizations. 

• Fold 1: Studying the landscape and how puzzle pieces work together. 

• Fold 2: How the governance is established and structured for NSTC and the National 

Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program (NAPMP). 

• Fold 3: Public-private partnerships and stacking work. 

Ms. Hanford stated that a white paper is coming in the first quarter of 2023, which addresses

how input matters with both governance and commerce, and where to spend time and energy in 

the short term. Ms. Hanford stated that the paper points out many details in the implementation, 

and it asks what some of the first set of decisions are to be made and how they support that with 

their input. Ms. Hanford stated that they started baselining as a team, having a variety of 

perspectives, and some team members having been involved in CHIPS since its inception and 

focused on leveling the playing field of knowledge and perspective within the workgroup. The 

working group has access to many briefs already and needs to carefully digest that information. 

Ms. Hanford expressed her gratitude for the thought leaders who took deep dives into the 
issues. She stated briefs were held in November and December, including colleagues from Intel 

and DOD, who added their perspectives. She stated the working group is currently hoping to 

hear from IMEC for input on how not to mimic the governance model but utilize and customize 

it. This would include constructing a host of questions, then laser-focusing on where to go next. 

The general grouping of the questions is as follows. The questions are also illustrated in the 

presentation: 

• Charge 1: How do these factors and state programs work with and mesh with each 

other? How do we engage as an invested community? 

• Charge 2: Governance: what problems can we learn from the past, what do we have 

to address with governance, and how to involve critical stakeholders? 

• Charge 3: A holding place for more questions to follow. 

Ms. Hanford stated that questions need to be narrowed down to the short term and that the 

working group had a quick meeting in November. 

Mr. Splinter thanked the presenter and opened the meeting to questions. 

Questions and Answers:

No questions were asked.

VI.Workforce Working Group Update

Mr. Davis turned the meeting to Dr. Tsu-Jae King Liu, Chair of the Workforce Working Group, 

who was present virtually. Dr. King Liu apologized that she could not be there in person and 

provided a brief update. Dr. King Liu acknowledged members of the Workforce working group 

for their work and described what the working group is looking to add. Dr. King Liu addressed 

the Workforce Working Group’s charge:

• Examine workforce needs across the U.S. microelectronics industry, and review 

programs that will increase interest and lead US R&D and manufacturing. 

Dr. King Liu addressed the need to build the leaders and innovators of tomorrow. Dr. King Liu 

stated that the working group reviewed numerous documents from multiple sources, including 

reports from the semiconductor industry and the government. She stated it was very clear that 

the semiconductor workforce is represented in 49 states and that factory workers will be 

contributing more and more to industry. One of the questions the working group asked was 

what kind of degrees are needed. She stated that manufacturers and fabricators, who comprise 

about half the workforce, needed less than a bachelor’s degree, and the remainder of the 

workforce will need bachelor’s and master’s degrees. 

Dr. King Liu then summarized the talent shortage and attrition and stated there is a growing 

gap. The problem is compounded, as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
(STEM) graduates are declining and showing less interest. The working group recognizes that 

the need is broad and deep and wants to fill out the membership from industry and add 

representation from trade and industry, minorities, and undergraduates, including faculty from 

community colleges. Dr. King Liu stated local governments could contribute support, so they

need their representation as well. She added that the size of the need is a large challenge. Dr. 

King Liu stated the working group will take inventory of existing programs, interview experts 

with more time dedicated to asking questions and identifying gaps, and finalize a summary with 

drafted recommendations in the first quarter of 2023.

Mr. Splinter thanked the presenter and opened the meeting to questions.

Questions and Answers:

No questions were asked.

The meeting broke for lunch and reconvened at noon ET.

VII. CHIPS Act Implementation and Interagency Coordination

Mr. Davis then turned the meeting over to Dr. Ronnie Chatterji, the White House Coordinator 

for CHIPS Implementation, Executive Office of the President. Dr. Chatterji began by stating he 

is honored to work with the Committee, including working on several advisory meetings, and 

that there is a huge impact. Dr. Chatterji stated he is placing a challenge on and looking for 

great potential and opportunity in this Committee. Dr. Chatterji stated this Committee is 

different from other committees, as so much effort is put behind it, including money. Dr. 

Chatterji stated he is working to make CHIPS work together and that $50.2 billion is being put 

toward CHIPS, with $11 billion toward R&D, including more for the DOD. He added that 

inclusion between DOD and DOC is important in creating effective synergy. Dr. Chatterji 

stated this is accomplished by building an ecosystem to build microchip plants (fabs). He added 

that tax incentives will aid in this task, with guidelines built with the Department of Treasury. 

He currently works to make sure all aspects of the CHIPS Act work with each other and with

the government’s involvement. 

Dr. Chatterji stated the CHIPS Act matters to every American and has bipartisan support. He 

added that this is a huge investment in the nation’s infrastructure. Dr. Chatterji then illustrated 

the challenges to the CHIPS Act.

• Disruptions to the supply chain. 

• Microchip scarcity affecting and contributing to inflation. 

• Many companies do not know where microchips are being built. 

Dr. Chatterji stated the CHIPS Act tries to address these areas, including by building more fabs

to improve our supply chain. 12% of semiconductors are currently being manufactured in the 

U.S. Dr. Chatterji stated R&D is vital to creating a lead and NIST is the most valuable part of 

the CHIPS Act. He stated access to these resources must be interconnected and that connections 

must be made between partners, DOC, and DOD to integrate further innovation. Dr. Chatterji 

further stated that manufacturing fabs are needed. Mr. Chatterji is working to make sure DOD 
and DOC are working in tandem with each other and CHIPS. He then stated building a base for 

DOD is different from building a base for DOC, and that common ground can be built. He 

added that private and federal sectors lead to collaborative success, using the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’s prior successes as an example. He further 

stated it was inspiring to see President Biden sign the CHIPS Act and that he wants Committee

members to be innovators and builders. 

Mr. Splinter thanked the presenter and opened the meeting to questions. 

Questions and Answers:

Q. What is the role of like-minded countries? 

A. Dr. Chatterji responded that we are seeing the same issues with our allies and partners. We 

develop institutions to facilitate these discussions, such as the Technology and Trade Council 

(TTC) with the European Union. Every other company is developing its programs for chip 

manufacturing. R&D is a team sport. Large teams work better with complex infrastructure and

by working across borders. International collaboration is necessary. We can learn from our 

history and our allies.

Q. A lot of great work in DOD: how did they get coordinated with various technologies? 

A. Dr. Chatterji responded that DOD accomplished this by thinking about the program and

having a scope of what's being done in the government. He added that NIST should have a 

strong coordinating role.

Q. Is it equally important where the chips are made? 

A. Dr. Chatterji responded that semiconductor production is very complex and is important in 

the development of these programs. 

Q. R&D should be linked and there should be access to that infrastructure. Any thoughts on 

how to execute it? 

A. Dr. Chatterji stated yes, but not sufficient time to be discussed in this forum in detail. 

Q. Does the Administration know the vulnerabilities we have?

A. Dr. Chatterji responded yes, this is important, and a key component that is taken into account 

in the current strategy. 

Mr. Splinter thanked Dr. Chatterji for his time.

VIII. Update on Microelectronics Leadership Strategy 

Mr. Davis then turned the meeting over to Dr. Lisa Friedersdorf, Assistant Director for 

Microelectronics, Materials, and Critical Minerals, of the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy. Dr. Friedersdorf addressed the Committee and stated they will be getting into the R&D 

details. She stated she was excited to see where this will go for these groups and to see 

timelines. Dr. Friedersdorf started by looking at the CHIPS Act as a whole, including 

innovations and supply chains, the specialized infrastructure, and prototyping. She stated it is a 
whole-of-government effort and that agencies have been working closely together, even before 

funding arrived. Ms. Friedersdorf said there was a focus on the section of the CHIPS Act 

devoted to advanced microelectronics R&D and that the subcommittee was co-chaired by the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Defense Advanced Research Projects 

(DARPA), and NIST. She discussed the makeup of the subcommittee, including the body 

responsible for developing the National Strategy for Microelectronics Research. Dr. 

Friedersdorf stated that, in addition to the CHIPS provisions which provide many resources that 

play a role in the semiconductor industry, they were looking at all the government processes. 

She stated this intersects with other initiatives, she recognizes the importance of those 

intersections which are part of the subcommittee, and that there are multiple agencies involved 

in these efforts and best practices. 

Dr. Friedersdorf stated that, in consultation with these agencies, this Committee is looking to 

accelerate the domestic development and production of microelectronics and strengthen the 

domestic microelectronics workforce. Dr. Friedersdorf stated key trends were discovered in 

interviews and one-on-ones. Some of those trends are the diversity of devices and applications, 

comprehensive uses, integrated design, and U.S. microchip ecosystem innovation, access to 

well-developed talent is a challenge across the supply chain, strong engagement with allies and 

partners, and improving energy efficiency increasing the sustainability and safeguarding 

intellectual property (IP) to sustain private R&D investment. Dr. Friedersdorf acknowledged 

there were many pieces and many elements connected, and many systems must work with one 

another for the ecosystem to function. Programs such as DOD Commons and NSTC need to 

make sense together and it was critical to the ecosystem’s success. She stated the R&D system

is looking at all pieces, including large and small businesses, state, and local governments, and 

internationally. She added that the semiconductor industry is complex and involves 

multinational distribution and that there is a need to work closely with international partners. 

She also stated artificial intelligence (AI) is driving innovation, and that the R&D ecosystem 

must be strengthened. Additionally, reports emphasize the need for closer collaboration from 

algorithms to packaging, including a need to look at every stage and conduct infrastructureintensive research.

• Infrastructure: Dr. Friedersdorf stated user facilities for R&D and lab-to-fab 

infrastructure are required to accelerate innovation. Facilities located in universities 

and federal labs need to be connected to prototype labs and manufacturing to prevent 

prototyping and later-stage infrastructure gaps. She emphasized not losing sight of 

these facilities for training and education situations and instruments. 

Dr. Friedersdorf pointed out that in September of 2022, OSTP released the National Strategy on 

Microelectronics Research, and that this will fuel future research, expand the workforce, and 

facilitate the rapid transition of R&D to the U.S. industry. She then discussed the key strategies:

• First Goal: To support advancing materials with an emphasis on systems and 

coordination with materials and hardware needs, as well as research into the tools. 

• Second Goal: Export and expand access to the R&D structure. Researchers are

struggling with later-stage prototyping, key strategies, and flexible design tools. 

Facilitate researcher access to vital materials. The strategy is to expand the workforce 
and the growth of microelectronics for students, including education from K-12 to the 

engineering and Ph.D. levels. Competition for talent exists in the labor pool across 

labor levels. 

• Third Goal: To facilitate rapid transition and collaboration across the pathways and 

engage the private sector. 

• The Final Goal: Build out and bridge these factors.

Dr. Friedersdorf asked, how do we build these prototyping facilities and network with each 

other, ensuring there is seamless access for innovators? In the RFI, questions were asked, and 

we received an impressive response from the private sector. Dr. Friedersdorf stated the working 

group is currently going through responses.

Mr. Splinter thanked Dr. Friedersdorf and opened the meeting to questions.

Questions and Answers:

Q. In what form would you accept comments on the national strategy OSTP developed?

A. Dr. Friedersdorf responded that input in any form is welcome. This working group and 

others providing feedback are appreciated and the feedback informs the strategy.

Q. How do we evaluate what will not be done?

A. Dr. Friedersdorf stated it’s a lot of money and must be invested wisely. We need to 

prioritize, collaborate with the industry, and use road maps to inform the work.

Q. Any part of recommendations on what needs to be started?

A. Dr. Friedersdorf responded that looking at the entire federal landscape of R&D, and looking 

at unrelated cycles going through their landscapes, will be a part of their evaluations. 

Q. Is there a continuous mechanism to inform the strategy on what’s not working and what is?

A. Dr. Friedersdorf stated this strategy was written some time ago and has been updated and 

evolved. She stated that the Committee is looking at implementing this strategy but has not 

gotten far enough on how to develop implementation and internal roadmaps. We need to be 

cognizant, look at what’s best for the ecosystem, foster strong industry collaboration, be

informed, and prioritize investments.

Q. Have you thought about how success will be measured?

A. Dr. Friedersdorf stated, we have contemplated this but don’t have anything specific to 

address. 

Q. Any timeline for Version 1.0?

A. Dr. Friedersdorf stated there is no timeline as of right now. 

Q. requires small companies who can work with them and create microchips. How are we 

addressing the supply chain shortcomings of materials?

A. Dr. Friedersdorf responded that it is being looked at currently.

Q. Given the importance of microelectronics, is it time to elevate the importance of the 
Committee? 

A. Dr. Friedersdorf stated the Committee is well supported with other initiatives and they have 

the support they need at this time. 

IX. National Science Foundation (NSF) Approach to CHIPS 

Mr. Davis then turned the meeting to Dr. Barry Johnson, the Assistant Director for 

Microelectronics Materials, and Critical Minerals at NSF. Dr. Johnson began by stating he was 

looking forward to conversation and engagement. Dr. Johnson prefaced that he was to be the 

point of contact for CHIPS and that NSF is addressing the CHIPS activities, workforce, and 

R&D. Dr. Johnson discussed some of the agency's history. He pointed out that the agency’s 

mission since 1950 is to ensure and advance the health and defense of the nation. NSF 

previously had seven directorates, and multiple integrated programs. CHIPS helped create a 

new Directorate: The Directorate for Technology Innovation and Partnerships (TIP). TIP is 

focused on lab-to-market activities, advancing key technologies, addressing societal needs, and 

accelerating the translation from lab to market. 

Dr. Johnson stated over 40,000 graduate students are supported by NSF and are leveraged to 

move forward and build the future workforce. This includes NSF reviewing and identifying 

programs to immediately support CHIPS, having a working group, and identifying other means

help support to the CHIPS Act. This includes: 

• Helping identify gaps and creating programs. 

• Expanding grants and advancing the work of grad students, doubling down on 

partnerships. 

• Helping enable the goals of the CHIPS program and making additional investments to 

enhance the CHIPS Act program, the Advance Technological Program, and training 

programs. 

• Creating scholarships for STEM in the semiconductor industry to help students from the 

community college to graduate levels. PhDs represent 75% in the industry, trained to be 

academic, and not hands-on, and creating a program that can fund an internship to 

enable a hands-on experience for the student is important. 1,400 internships are already 

funded, which is excellent and gives students an experiential opportunity in the industry. 

• Using research, such as Future of Semiconductors (FuSe), to help drive the need to 

create new materials, devices, and systems. Dr. Johnson also discussed the various other 

programs that will be applied to the CHIPS Act. 

Dr. Johnson pointed out that investments in startups should not be ignored and that the Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR), a program that has been running for 40 years, equals 

95% are small businesses. He states NSF wants to invest in technology risks to increase interest 

in the private sector. This includes tracking smaller businesses and doubling down on 

partnerships by providing $10 million for Intel and Micron, and funding for entrepreneurs to 

further innovate within the CHIPS program. Dr. Johnson concluded by discussing the 

acceleration of partnerships with NSF in the semiconductors industry. 

Mr. Splinter thanked Dr. Johnson and opened the meeting to questions. 
Questions and Answers

Q. In the programs, how much of that is CHIPS funding?

A. Dr. Johnson stated, none for the programs shown here, CHIPS provided an additional $200 

million over five years. Expansion is possible if Congress appropriates funds.

Q. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program for startups: what’s your thinking 

about meshing programs?

A. Dr. Johnson stated NSF is trying to better engage with private investment communities. 

Phase IIB (see presentation), adds 50 cents on the dollar, to help give them the equity needed.

Q. From the standpoint of translational impact, share thoughts beyond partnership models about

how to bridge value down.

A. Dr. Johnson stated the valley of death is there. NSF is focusing on transitional impact and 

funding a university for a proof of concept to show commercial potential. Innovation Corps (ICorps) is focused on aligning ideas with market needs. Most startups fail due to creating ideas 

that no one wants. I-Corps helps startups find market needs. Mr. Johnson mentioned a new 

program, Pathways to Enable Open-Source Ecosystems (POSE), that creates pathways to create 

open-source ecosystems and make them available collectively. Make this easier for the 

entrepreneur. The POSE program has been open source with 24 awards so far.

Q. For the Experimental Learning for Emerging and Novel Technologies (ExLent) Program, is 

there a mix of community and 4-year colleges?

A. Dr. Johnson confirmed there is a mix of community and 4-year colleges. The program 

enables those in the workforce to pivot to new workforces. ExLent is another program to help 

those just out of high school that community colleges can take advantage of.

X. Department of Defense’s Approach to Chips 

Mr. Davis then turned the meeting over to Dr. Dev Shenoy, the Principal Director for 

Microelectronics, DOD. Dr. Shenoy discussed the importance of the Commons in 

microelectronics. He stated requests for solutions (RFS) shall take precedence. He explained 

microelectronics is about translating from academia to manufacturing, lab to fab, and the 

Commons plans to overcome those hurdles. Dr. Shenoy stated closely coupling R&D with 

manufacturing is crucial in protecting IP in the U.S. He acknowledged that there are barriers 

such as access to the fabs and exorbitant prices for a smaller business. Dr. Shenoy stated IP for 

designs costs significantly more than in the past, which is another obstacle to overcome, 

including domestic access being very limited. Dr. Shenoy stated being onshore in the U.S. is 

necessary to support the semiconductor ecosystem. He further stated they cannot innovate 

without a workforce and that the workforce is vital to these capabilities. Dr. Shenoy stated that 

to sustain working relationships for the ecosystem, manufacturing facilities, interagency 

partners, and all stakeholders that matter within the ecosystem, need to be partners. 

Dr. Shenoy discussed rapid lab to fab prototyping, which is one of the paths forward to get

ahead of the competition. He stated that the educational and industry needs are understood. Dr. 

Shenoy then presented the valley of death for a lab to fab for manufacturing and prototyping. 

Dr. Shenoy pointed out that startups and incubators need to be included in the conversation 
from the very beginning. This includes commercial technologies and electronic warfare. He 

pointed out that venture capital is not the best place for capital and that the Commons will be 

the hub for networking. There are valid stakeholders, such as defense contractors and programs, 

which need to be informed of what these opportunities are from day one, and the Commons 

addresses this. Dr. Shenoy illustrated the evolution from concept to product, with an emphasis 

on bringing commercial companies to the tech demonstrations. He stated this will ensure a path 

forward for the technology and stated they need to cross the valley of death for a lab to fab 

model to be successful.

Dr. Shenoy then discussed the hubs in ensuring local economies are strengthened, such as 

colleges, startups, and incubators. He pointed out that any entity can be part of a hub and want 

to make sure it is successful, including core fabs, but also development fabs, such as AI and 

hardware. Dr. Shenoy stated development fabs, such as new materials and processes, are vital to 

the life of the semiconductor ecosystem. He added that there is a need to bridge the production 

fabs and the development fabs. Without infrastructure, there is no success for the Commons, so 

the Commons will support the infrastructure. He added that the role of projects will be to 

support, facilitate, build, develop, and challenge the infrastructure. Dr. Shenoy stated the Hub 

Models illustrate the gaps where resource sharing is needed, illustrate where the workforce is, 

and support a self-sustaining environment for the Commons network. Encouraging hubs to 

reach out to underserved and minority communities is key. Dr. Shenoy highlighted that it would

take top talent to manage these hubs, 400 million per year, so we need effective management of 

cores and hubs. Dr. Shenoy stated the hubs need a flexible management model, which includes 

leveraging an existing financial instrument, including a non-profit consortium. The Commons 

will bridge the lab to fab gaps, capitalize on innovation, boost the local economies, and ensure a 

robust supply chain.

Mr. Splinter thanked Dr. Shenoy and opened the floor to questions and answers. 

Questions and Answers:

Q. How do these hubs differ from manufacturing institutes?

A. Dr. Shenoy responded that the one difference is the Manufacturing Innovation Institutes 

(MIIs) as the units of hubs and cores. The hubs and cores allow for the flexibility to be 

anywhere in the U.S., allow for multiple hubs supporting a core, and so on.

Q. Could you share your thoughts on how hubs and NIST can work together?

A. Dr. Shenoy stated there is a lot of overlap in opportunities and that there is no duplication. 

The NSTC and the Commons will be working at readiness levels from 3 to 5. NSTC can work 

on the later levels of development. 

Q. Clarification: Who has the final say on the hub’s proposal inclusion?

A. Dr. Shenoy stated the hubs are a collection of organizations coming together, and they will 

have to be able to select the proposals internally and plan to support the network. We cannot 

have several projects from hubs; hubs will have to submit the projects between themselves. 

Q. Who selects the hubs?
A. Dr. Shenoy responded that a source selection team selects the hubs.

Q. Do you see a need to enhance the needs of facilities and universities beyond what has been 

supported by NSF to create a more integrated fab demonstration at NSTC?

A. Dr. Shenoy stated the short answer is yes; it is a complex effort. There may be a need to set 

up infrastructure in the labs before transitioning to a lab. We want to promote prototyping, but 

the labs need to have the infrastructure to support the hub.

The meeting took a short break.

XI. Public Comment Period

Mr. Davis began discussing the public comment period. He stated that a FAQ document 

consisting of responses to the most common questions received would be posted on 

CHIPS.gov.

XII. Discussion and Deliberation

Mr. Davis then turned the meeting over to Mr. Splinter to discuss and deliberate on the 

information and presentations from the meeting. Mr. Splinter stated that there may be questions 

and answers in the future. He stated he was thinking about multiple discussions on the 

workforce today, including discussions about how much of the talent is U.S. trained and how to

continue to bring the best and brightest around the world to the United States. Mr. Splinter 

stated every group is working on the workforce, and that this is an important aspect to include. 

A Committee member stated the presentations made were amazing and wanted to commend the 

Committee included in this discussion. The Committee member stated the Department of 

Commerce brought in so many of the top talents, which was fantastic. One question was raised

about the workforce: NSF had a direct impact. Everyone else is trying to make an impact but

should there be a more systematic approach for the NSTC workforce group? Mr. Splinter 

replied that yes, this would fall under the purview of Dr. King Liu’s working group. Mr. 

Splinter asked Dr. King Liu to take a deeper dive into this matter, to reinvigorate students, but 

also change the way it has been done in the past. Another Committee member commented that 

talented people are not moving into the U.S. and that money cannot be the only motivation to 

create engagement with semiconductors.

Another Committee member commented on the Secretary’s comments on the workforce and 

stated it is reassuring that so many representatives agree with this emphasis on workforce 

training. Also, acknowledging the supply chain issues and that there are two sides to the 

workforce training. The Committee member added that students need to know they have an 

exciting industry waiting for them. NSTC should build this knowledge for students to become 

involved in the future.

Another Committee member mentioned the urgency of our efforts and stated we need to have a 

strawman structure and an early set of recommendations. The Committee member stated there 

is a real sense of urgency and we need to meet these deadlines. Mr. Splinter stated time is of the 

essence. The amount of work will be more manageable as time moves forward, but the front 

end is the tough part.
A Committee member made an observation, stating microelectronics presentations were 

excellent and made the straight call out to the stakeholders to startups being vital to the 

ecosystems. The Committee member stated that while they advised these stakeholders, the 

Committee needs to be very clear on who the customer is. This effort, the CHIPS Act, is the 

most important startup in the country, and we need to be clear on who the customer is and what 

problem we are solving for them. The Committee member stated we need to make some hard 

tradeoffs. NSF was good at calling out the successes it has had with CHIPS. Every single one of 

the big companies they mentioned was helped and supported by the government. If we don’t 

push this innovation, we would not have succeeded. Mr. Splinter asked, what are our success 

factors? He stated the success factors are something we need to consider for the future.

Another Committee member commented that two important factors, effectiveness, and scale, 

have not been addressed yet. The meeting included a lot of valuable information on workforce 

development, but how do you put the elements of training together and make them effective? If 

the Committee and stakeholders don’t put the same emphasis on workforce development that 

they have on R&D, then the metrics must be important as well as the return on our investment. 

A third component, scale, involves asking how much we can get with existing funds, how much 

from academia, and federal and state government involvement. Mr. Splinter added that they 

need to think about this broadly and systematically, including multiple levels of government. 

A Committee member asked, if NIST can communicate in what format you want these 

recommendations to be submitted?

Mr. Boehm responded that the working group outputs could be a PowerPoint presentation to the 

Committee, or a letter report. A short white paper, maybe two or three pages, with a full report 

and presentation. 

A Committee member commented that today was a great day of sharing. They asked, "If we 

could think about the year 2025, what is the number of chips that must be made to be 

competitive, and how many workers would be required to make that number possible?" They 

need to focus on that, or it will be lost regionally. Mr. Splinter added that they need to 

understand the demand side of this. He asked Dr. King Liu; how many factories and workers 

currently exist. Dr. King Liu replied that she only has some rough estimates, but tens of 

thousands of technicians and engineers over the next five years. A Committee member 

commented that there needs to be a strong demand from K-12 and community colleges. Also,

that issues such as improving STEM demand will not change overnight.

A Committee member asked if it would be possible for NSTC to have a more coherent vision 

for these programs. Does it make sense to have more transparent technologies?

Mr. Splinter responded that these programs create a very complex picture, and they will have to 

learn as much as they can.

A Committee member commented that they have focused more on the R&D element, but how 

will the R&D and manufacturing aspects of the CHIPS Act be connected? What’s the systemic 

connection? How shall we develop that connection and provide more input? Mr. Splinter

replied that this connection is a big part of the charter, and they need to get NSTC to bring those 
recommendations. A Committee member commented that they know the cyclical demand in the 

industry and are hoping to go forward. How do we think beyond the next downturn? Mr. 

Splinter added that the CHIPS Act understands the downturn and that the downturn is when you 

want to invest and change the future.

A Committee member stated they found the presentations and meeting inspiring. Prototyping is 

an expensive affair and takes a lot of practice and alignment. When they talk about the NSTC, 

they need to establish and build this to be used for a long time and remain vital to the 

ecosystems. What kind of metrology and prototyping flows are required to keep it going? If the 

NSTC can establish this, then we can improve these capabilities and help people count on them.

A Committee member stated that the Committee is uniquely positioned to show the impact of 

fab jobs, but there is a strategic thread missing. The Committee member asked, what is the story 

we tell in February and March about why their proposals are best to go first? 

Mr. Splinter responded that developing a strategic answer to this question is an excellent 

challenge for the working groups. Note: The IAC shall not participate in selecting recipients of 

federal financial assistance.

A Committee member thanked the Committee for the day but stated they did not hear enough

about the inclusion of diverse and minority communities, looking to ensure their inclusion and 

economic benefit, which is something the Committee should look for. Another Committee 

member stated that research aspects were discussed and emphasized work on nanoscales and 

quantum research centers. The Committee member pointed out that, on the demand side, they

need to not conflate the demand for products with the demand for prototyping and consider how 

to lower costs and make prototyping more available to smaller businesses. 

A Committee member commented that one area missing is the startups. They stated that they 

need to see where these startups are not competing but working with each other in the 

marketplace. Mr. Splinter replied that this is a great opportunity for collaboration.

A Committee member made a final comment, highlighting the need to focus on the lab and the 

fab, not just lab to fab or fab to lab. They should keep in mind the need for jobs to get students 

into those fields and how to include small businesses. Mr. Splinter commented on the technical 

capabilities of the supply chain and stated he’s not worried about equipment but is more 

worried about the upstream suppliers and whether they are developing at the level we need. 

This question may be a second phase of R&D discussions. Mr. Splinter again thanked everyone 

for the learning opportunity and for understanding the magnitude and complexity of the goal. 

XIII. Closing Business

Mr. Davis turned over the meeting for final comments to Dr. Laurie Locascio, the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director of NIST. Dr. Locascio 

stated how truly important and critical this meeting was. She highlighted the intense interest in 

the work, stating that over a thousand people participated online and adding that the world and 

government are listening. Dr. Locascio asked, how do they inspire the next generation? How do 

they bring it back? How do they inspire the next big things? They need to hear the Committee’s
input. They need to have coordination across various programs and R&D. How do we reach 

across agencies and nations? Dr. Locascio stated that they don’t want competition between 

allies and like-minded companies. She thanked agency partners and various support staff and 

recognized their cooperation and coordination to bring all this together. She expressed gratitude

to the Committee and its members. 

Mr. Splinter then addressed the Committee, stating the meeting made a clearer understanding 

for all. Another meeting will be held in early February, depending on the status of the working 

groups, and recommendations for Congress. Mr. Splinter once more thanked the Committee for 

their participation and wished everyone happy holidays.

Mr. Davis stated all presentations will be on CHIPS.gov, and a meeting will be held in 

February.

Mr. Benjamin Davis adjourned the meeting at 3 pm ET.
Below are the questions and comments received from the general public in advance of this 

meeting.

Topic Attendee Questions

Funding 

allocation

Will some portion of CHIPS R&D funding be available for targeted R&D 

proposals for advanced semi/device development, for example a type of 

program that DARPA or C5ISR or other defense agencies typically fund? 

Or is it dedicated to infrastructure/ecosystem development?

Funding 

allocation

Will funding be available to assist in infrastructure upgrades such as utilities 

(gas, water, electric), broadband internet, and site development that will be 

needed to support the attraction and growth of this industry in middle 

America?

Funding 

allocation

What are the key measures or rubric for grading the qualification of 

upstream suppliers (e.g., suppliers of critical components for wafer fab 

equipment)? or other background which would help inform decision-makers 

about a company's fit for funding? Does it benefit upstream suppliers to 

have sponsoring equipment suppliers and/or fabs who use the upstream 

components?

Funding 

allocation

Is there a comprehensive listing of open solicitations that is available on a 

central website (doesn't appear to be on the CHIPS and Science Act website 

https://science.house.gov/the-chips-and-science-act) or can be provided?

Funding 

allocation

I'm interested in funding opportunities for quantum AI security technology 

development for turning concepts to prototypes. How can industry cross the 

Valley of Death to Commercialization? Developing concepts/prototypes in 

this field is millions not $100k split between multiple partner companies 

paid at the end of the work. Current programs are cash flow and IP 

unfriendly to small start-ups.

Funding 

allocation

Has DOC/IAC made further determination as to the universe of up- and 

down-stream entities that would be eligible to apply for the competitive 

funding, and/or file for AMIC, beyond the language already present in the 

Act? If not, when may such further guidance be published? Thank you -

Funding 

allocation

1). My organization is very much interested in learning how to become 

eligible and participate in creating one of the at least 20 new technology 

hubs. What is the process and procedure in setting up a tech hub?

Funding 

allocation

2). What International will small/minority business enterprises have to 

participate in the procurement process with Semiconductor Microchips 

design, manufacturing and R&D companies?

International Have the Committee assessed the length of time required to on/offshore

replacement semiconductor production facilities; recognizing the 

vulnerability of single technical points of failure, in Taiwan, would future 

plans include collaboration with US allies/countries?

IP Can you address how the IAC will interact with small, non-traditional

fabless semiconductor and MEMs companies that have invented key 

enabling proprietary technology. In particular, how the IAC plans to 

safeguard their intellectual property (IP) rights when introducing them into 

government supported projects, especially when they are providing 

technology that meets new project requirements.
Oversight Give the amount of funding provided in the CHIPS Act, how will awarding 

agencies and recipient organizations ensure that they are best equipped to 

makes sure oversight is not an oversight and that accountable and secure 

research security is in place. - Mike Shannon, IPTalons, Inc.

Private 

investment

Is there a mandate for $ invested by private market vs public government 

firms? For example China has a 5 to 1 mandate.

Workforce Will there be training programs for women/minority businesses that will 

help get minorities into that job market? If so, what programs are available. 

I would like to be a CHIP trainer and job placement professional to help 

American Blacks and other minorities succeed in this new field.

Tech priority How important will be to have a strong supply chain of silicon carbide 

abrasives for the future of silicon carbide wafers?

Tech priority How does Commerce expect to implement the PCAST guidance for 

wearable biosensors and mitigating neuro-diseases?

Funding 

allocation

Which organizations would be best to submit proposals to for R&D focused 

semi-conductor projects?

Funding 

allocation

When do you anticipate the release of funding opportunities?

Funding 

allocation

What's the process envisioned for the Department of Commerce to receive 

proposals for the CHIPS Act's grant program.

Funding 

allocation

What is the process to determine if contractors to CHIP manufacturers 

qualify for government grants?

Funding 

allocation

What is available for small companies and when will BAAs be published?

Funding 

allocation

funding for assembly, packaging and testing of Silicon Photonics chips and 

Photonics Integrated Circuits

Funding 

allocation

As it relates to Tech Hubs, what is the status on appropriations and what will 

this process look like? Any understanding of timing? When should we 

expect rulemaking and an application portal? Your insight on chances of 

success/failure moving forward?

IAC 

membership

What is the logic behind the appointment of only 24 committee members 

representing every facet of the programs?

IAC 

membership

Since the IAC does not have any representatives from the US Defense 

Industry, how will the IAC ensure it meets the legislative requirement in the 

CHIPS Act to address both economic and national security needs for 

microelectronics?

IAC 

membership

How can small business leaders be part of the advisory committee?

How will loans and loan guarantees be implemented in support of VCbacked startups with existing senior venture debt?

How will funding be implemented to support work on AI on chip projects?

International Given that the semiconductor industry is has always been a global industry, 

one thing I did not hear today was which of all of these working groups and 

committees will be addressing who all of these CHIPS Act-enabled entities 

will be addressing how what we do going forward to reinvigorate our 

infrastructure can align within this broader global supply chain and not try to 
interrupt and duplicate this supply chain on-shore?

International Considering the recent changes to the supply chain in China, what is current 

road map to accommodate the US supply chain of manufacturing? Thanks,

International Will the China guardrails apply to CHIPS Act applications for programs 

under FY21 NDAA Section 9906

International What are the benefits to IAC meeting for residents of Middle East? Could 

we participate physically in any other decisions Making events? Please let 

me know

Non-profits What role will nonprofits and anchor institutions in local communities play 

in the execution and implementation of the strategy provided here today?

On-shoring Is there a specific person at NIST to contact about CHIPS on-shoring 

opportunities? Perhaps associated with U.S. national lab partners?

Operation Has DOC established a formal timeline for implementation of the NSTC and 

NAPMP?

Operational 

model

What type of operational model do you think would be useful for the NSTC 

to best meet industry needs?

Operations 

needs

What kind of software solutions is the committee seeking for supporting the 

government's newer NIST standards and Zero Trust needs?

Small 

business

What options are there for small businesses involved in the semiconductor 

industry to participate in the CHIPS Act?

Small 

business

Innovation is the catalyst of economy. In the coming digital era, with view 

to the CHIPS Act., where and how do small firms, pushing extreme 

innovation, participate?

Small 

business

How will research and development for dual purpose and defense

applications from small business be supported?

State 

commerce

How can state level departments of Commerce showcase sponsorship of 

their supported and desired projects and companies?

Tech priority What are the committee views on supporting reshoring for high power 

Silicon device manufacturing for the military and the electric utility 

applications?

Tech priority Can you describe the differences between CHIPS efforts in semiconductors 

and electronics packaging?

Workforce Does workforce development fit in to near term planning?

Workforce Since every working group and committee seems to be recognizing the 

critical need for developing the workforce across the ecosystem, I did not 

hear exactly how all of these currently separate efforts including this topic 

within their focus are planning to work between these many efforts as much 

as possible upfront rather than duplicating efforts and supplying parallel 

recommendations to be sorted out later. Is there a plan as to how this broad 

and deep ‘workforce’ issue can be coordinated across all of these efforts, 

which by definition is going to be among the most difficult task as well as 

the one that is going to take the longest to address in a sustainable manner?
Ecology Why did the US gov support so many kinds of batteries when the sodium 

ion battery is clearly the best? It doesn’t rely on retrieving precious minerals 

230 feet below sea level, destroying marine life & habitat, nor does it require 

engaging in difficult geopolitical scenarios.

Funding 

allocation

What grants are currently available to nonprofits?

Funding 

allocation

For those proposals approved for an award, how soon will funds be 

available, accessible or distributed? And what will means or mechanism be 

for distribution of award funds: percentage up front, with stages for future 

distributions, or lump sum? Third party custodian-discretionary? Thank you

International 1.Any application procedures for oversea institutions get involved in the

R&D program? 2.How the R&D program use the infrastructure and facility

currently in operation.

General What is the best method for a US-based semiconductor company to learn 

about and engage in funded CHIPS programs?

General Export inputs in relations of services and merging markets

General interdisciplinary science education seems low. i don’t see how the NIST 

miracle will persist. standards need to explain why pi is in some many 

equations, what to do with eponym measurements from joules to newtons, 

radiation conversion charts key , dimensionless constants ? meaning of 

equations/ equalities, epigenetics usurps Darwin, Townes

General What are some key takeaways/priorities the committee has from the request 

for comment period on the CHIPS Act?

Science What is Landauer's Principle?

Science Is Polysilicon production understood to be the foundational building block 

of Semiconductor Manufacturing?

Small 

business

Small business to develop supply chain for semiconductors in America -

what are the steps the committee is taking?

Small 

business

I am a new entrepreneur who is looking forward to discuss about viable 

options for trading minerals.

Funding 

allocation 

Just a general question about the funding outlook/status for the Science 

portion of the Act. 

General The Question is process protection rule in law benefit new Digital Economy 

in Treasury and Bank Industry example rule Bit Coin and Virtual Dollar the 

is SEC only regulation boot the is Global rule trade Bit Coin and Virtual 

Dollar the classic contract only solution.

General Looking forward to learning more about the IAC!

General Is there questioning allowed during virtual

General Coming by letter of recommendation from the California 10th district 

Congressional office

General Can ZRELLAB LTD submit a proposal to the IAC for the empty Industrial 

property here in Philadelphia PA?

General Planning to watch online, not in-person, but the webpage did not give me an 

option to simply watch online.